MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012832425 · doi:10.1002/apj.554

Monitoring of solid oxide fuel cell systems

2011· article· en· W2012832425 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault detection and isolationSolid oxide fuel cellCommercializationAutomationProcess (computing)Monitoring and controlComputer scienceReliability engineeringFault (geology)Condition monitoringEngineeringControl engineeringBusinessElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fault detection and isolation of critical equipments as well as process operation is an important part of automation. Failure to detect fault can contribute to process safety incident, violation of environmental regulation and, as a result, reduce profit from the unit affected by the fault. Even though there has been a lot of work done on the modeling and control of the solid oxide fuel cell, little attention has been paid to its monitoring methodology. The need of reliable SOFC operations and current effort toward commercialization call for advanced monitoring technology, which constitutes one of the most important directions for SOFC research and development. In this article, as an attempt toward monitoring of SOFC systems a hybrid monitoring approach is developed which formulates the fault detection problem as a linear matrix inequality (LMI). The formulation is then illustrated through its application to the solid oxide fuel cell and its system to handle constraints and detect faults early. Copyright © 2011 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.179 · 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