MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095116039 · doi:10.3390/en20200377

Direct Utilization of Liquid Fuels in SOFC for Portable Applications: Challenges for the Selection of Alternative Anodes

2009· article· en· W2095116039 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnodeMaterials scienceCarbon fibersElectricity generationYttria-stabilized zirconiaSolid oxide fuel cellHydrogenWaste managementProcess engineeringChemical engineeringCubic zirconiaMetallurgyChemistryElectrodePower (physics)EngineeringComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) have the advantage of being able to operate with fuels other than hydrogen. In particular, liquid fuels are especially attractive for powering portable applications such as small power generators or auxiliary power units, in which case the direct utilization of the fuel would be convenient. Although liquid fuels are easier to handle and transport than hydrogen, their direct use in SOFC can lead to anode deactivation due to carbon formation, especially on traditional nickel/yttria stabilized zirconia (Ni/YSZ) anodes. Significant advances have been made in anodic materials that are resistant to carbon formation but often these materials are less electrochemically active than Ni/YSZ. In this review the challenges of using liquid fuels directly in SOFC, in terms of gas-phase and catalytic reactions within the anode chamber, will be discussed and the alternative anode materials so far investigated will be compared.

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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · 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