MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2026931919 · doi:10.1115/fuelcell2009-85170

In-Situ Estimation of Faradaic Efficiency for a Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Stack by a Carbon Dioxide Saturated Solution Method

2009· article· en· W2026931919 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Liang, Xiaofeng Xie, Ibrahim Alaefour, Aaron Pereira, Xianguo Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnodeFaraday efficiencyMethanolStack (abstract data type)Direct methanol fuel cellCathodeVolumetric flow rateAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceCarbon dioxideChemistryChemical engineeringThermodynamicsChromatographyElectrodeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) system consisting of 40 single cells was assembled to study the influence of the transport phenomena at the anode and stack faradaic efficiencies by a CO2 saturated solution method. This method corrected the common experimental error in measuring methanol crossover caused by the simultaneous CO2 permeation from the anode to cathode. Both anode and stack faradaic efficiencies were estimated using this method. An equivalent “carbon-flow current” has been defined and a relationship between the transport phenomena and efficiencies was developed. Also the effect of methanol concentration, methanol flow rate and air flow rate on stack efficiency was studied. The results show that lower methanol flow rate, lower methanol concentration and higher air flow rate are all helpful in decreasing the methanol crossover and increase the stack faradaic efficiency.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→