MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141350169 · doi:10.1149/2.0191507jes

Investigating Inlet Condition Effects on PEMFC GDL Liquid Water Transport through Pore Network Modeling

2015· article· en· W2141350169 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammadreza Fazeli, James Hinebaugh, Aimy Bazylak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInletSaturation (graph theory)Materials sciencePercolation (cognitive psychology)MechanicsCapillary pressurePercolation theoryPetroleum engineeringPorosityPorous mediumChemistryGeologyComposite materialConductivityGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the influence of the liquid water inlet boundary conditions at the gas diffusion layer (GDL)/catalyst layer interface on the spatial distribution of liquid water within the GDL was studied. We used pore network modeling with invasion percolation to simulate liquid water transport in a commercially available GDL, where the detailed, 3D microstructure of the GDL was obtained through X-ray imaging. Three inlet boundary conditions were studied: uniform pressure (single reservoir), uniform flux (completely discretized reservoirs), and distributed uniform pressure (random spatial- and size-distributions of reservoirs). We presented the distributed uniform pressure boundary condition as a more realistic inlet, where inlets are randomly distributed reservoirs that are connected to multiple inlet pores. It was found that the overall saturation ranged from 6% to 28% when the number of inlets ranged from 20 to 300; however, the GDL/catalyst layer delamination dominated water transport behavior.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207