Developing the AC17 Efficiency Test for Mobile Air Conditioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have collaborated over the past two years to develop an efficiency test for mobile air conditioner (MAC) systems. Because the effect of efficiency differences between different MAC systems and different technologies is relatively small compared to overall vehicle fuel consumption, quantifying these differences has been challenging. The objective of this program was to develop a single dynamic test procedure that is capable of discerning small efficiency differences, and is generally representative of mobile air conditioner usage in the United States. The test was designed to be conducted in existing test facilities, using existing equipment, and within a sufficiently short time to fit standard test facility scheduling. Representative ambient climate conditions for the U.S. were chosen, as well as other test parameters, and a solar load was included. The procedure was then performed by the OEMs on a wide range of vehicles to assess repeatability, accuracy, and other parameters. While these evaluations continue, and the results have been at times mixed, the test is robust and the overall experience with the test has been positive. Repeatability and accuracy have been good, but MAC CO₂ emissions are small compared to test-to-test variations in CO₂ emissions associated with other vehicle functions, especially on hybrid vehicles. Thus, even with normal test repeatability levels, the benefits of individual MAC technologies cannot always be discerned. Work continues to understand the performance of the test, including potential improvements and supplements. The new test is a useful addition to the tools we can use to assess MAC efficiency in order to make MAC improvements in the future.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".