MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056511025 · doi:10.1149/06112.0083ecst

Development of a High Resolution Thermal Model of the Microporous Layer found in PEM Fuel Cells

2014· article· en· W2056511025 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven Joseph Botelho, Aimy Bazylak

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMicroporous materialThermal conductivityMaterials scienceProton exchange membrane fuel cellParticle (ecology)Nanoscopic scaleNanotechnologyChemical engineeringComposite materialFuel cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the nanoscale features of the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell microporous layer (MPL) are considered in the determination of the effective thermal conductivity. A combination of scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy was used to visualize SGL-10BB and SGL-10BC MPLs, and we found that the MPL typically consists of randomly positioned spherical particles with diameters ranging from 10-100 nm. We developed a unit-cell model packed with spherical particles of various diameters to represent the MPL based on our high resolution visualizations. A thermal analysis based on the Gauss-Seidel iterative method for conductive heat transfer was utilized to obtain the effective thermal conductivity of various unit-cell configurations. It was found that the nature of contact between MPL particles dominates the effective thermal conductivity, which provides valuable insight for future MPL designs. To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first investigation of how the nanoscale features (namely particle to particle contacts) affect the bulk effective thermal conductivity of the material. This nanostructed model can also be used for future investigations, such as oxygen diffusion and electrical conductivity studies.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207