Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary form only given as follows. Development of fuel cell power plants for utility applications has been the major thrust of this technology over the years. Phosphoric acid fuel cell power plants have been the first to be placed in field demonstrations and to be offered as commercial products. Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cell power plants have been under development and are approaching the field demonstration phase. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, until now, have not been considered for these utility applications. The main objection was that this technology was developed for aerospace use and was considered to be too costly for utilities. In addition, PEM fuel cells do not provide high grade heat that could be used for cogeneration. However, in the early 1980s, PEM fuel cell technology was selected as the primary fuel cell candidate for transportation applications. Efforts under transportation programs were directed toward cost reduction and improved performance. Advances achieved in these programs prompted Ballard Power Systems to reevaluate the application of PEM fuel cells for utility power plants. This evaluation indicated that PEM power plants could be competitive with phosphoric acid systems in multikilowatt power plants. The PEM power plants would also be significantly smaller and lighter. (Recent reports on phosphoric acid power plant test and evaluation in Europe and Japan have stated that a smaller and lighter power plant in the multikilowatt range is highly desirable and is a development goal.) Therefore, in 1991, Ballard began the first phase of a program to develop a natural gas fuelled PEM fuel cell stationary system and its constituent components. This paper will discuss the goals and status of this program.>
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.032 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".