MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study on Temperature Uniformity and Rising Rate of High-Power Lithium-Ion Battery Pack

2014· article· en· W1987869713 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Wang, Yu Ming Nie, Zhan Ji Yin, Zhi Tong He

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPower Systems and Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperating temperatureBattery packBattery (electricity)Nuclear engineeringPower (physics)Materials scienceVolumetric flow rateAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the operating characteristics of high-power battery pack in practical application, the effects of four factors, which include operating load, state of charge (SOC), ambient temperature and operating temperature, on the temperature uniformity and rising rate of battery pack under natural convection were studied based on Arbin test bench. The results indicate that: the operating load and SOC of battery pack doesn’t affect its temperature uniformity, which was deteriorated as the increasing of operating temperature of battery pack, or improved as the increasing of ambient temperature when the other factor is kept constant. The increment of operating load or ambient temperature could result in a higher temperature rising rate, while the increasing of SOC or operating temperature could lead to a lower temperature rising rate, when the other three factors are kept constant. When the operating temperature or temperature differences achieved threshold value, thermal management system should choose proper extent of forced flow and flow field in accordance with the battery pack’s current operating conditions, in order to ensure the economy of the thermal management system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicPower Systems and Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207