MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559728017 · doi:10.4271/2005-01-3829

Comparison of Emissions and Fuel Consumption between Gasoline and E85 in a Simulated Hybrid Electric Vehicle

2005· article· en· W1559728017 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Terrier, Patrice Seers, Henri Champliaud

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNational Renewable Energy Laboratory
KeywordsGasolineAutomotive engineeringMiles per gallon gasoline equivalentFuel efficiencyGreen vehicleConsumption (sociology)Environmental scienceElectric vehicleWaste managementEngineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper presents the effects of using E85 (15% gasoline and 85% Ethanol) on the emissions and fuel consumption of a simulated hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) as compared to the usage of gasoline fuel. The benefits of successive engine modifications to obtain a optimized E85 engine (increased compression ratio) in an HEV are quantified. The results demonstrate that the largest reduction in pollutant emissions, of between 20% and 40%, depending on the specific pollutant, is obtained when the fuel is changed to E85. Increasing the compression ratio to take advantage of the high octane rating of E85 provides a slight improvement in fuel economy and emissions. Finally, the modification of the hybrid control strategy parameters only brings about a slight improvement in fuel economy and emissions. However, the parameter values are different for the FTP and US06 cycles. This latter finding demonstrates that the hybrid strategy must be adapted to match driving conditions.</div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207