MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121299536 · doi:10.1149/1.2897967

Analysis of Battery Safety and Hazards' Risk Mitigation

2008· article· en· W2121299536 on OpenAlexaff
Cyrus Ashtiani

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Automotive industryBattery (electricity)HazardHazardous wasteEngineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringBusinessWaste managementPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For several years now, there has been a strong drive in the automotive industry to displace the NiMH batteries in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) with lighter, more durable, more powerful and potentially less expensive Li-Ion batteries. These efforts have been hampered mostly by the concerns over the safety of the Li-Ion batteries. Such concerns have been overblown by merely focusing on abusive testing without paying equal attention to assessing the risk posed by such batteries in the event of a mishap. History shows that the automotive industry has been very successful in managing the risk posed by gasoline, a highly combustible fluid with an energy density 100 times more than the most energy-dense of advance batteries. This paper discusses a methodology developed for the risk assessment of advance batteries. Although the focus here is on the batteries used in hybrid, electric, or plug-in vehicles, the methodology itself, called Hazard Modes & Risk Mitigation Analysis (HMRMA), is quite general and can be used in other applications for batteries as well as for other components & parts that maybe considered hazardous. In addition, the methodology quantifies the risk associated with each hazard and becomes a valuable design tool to develop the most effective way of reducing the risk.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207