Center for Electrocatalysis, Transport Phenomena, and Materials (CETM) for Innovative Energy Storage - Final Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EFRC vision. The direct use of organic hydrides in fuel cells as virtual hydrogen carriers that generate stable organic molecules, protons, and electrons upon electro-oxidation and can be electrochemically charged by re-hydrogenating the oxidized carrier was the major focus of the Center for Electrocatalysis, Transport Phenomena and Materials for Innovative Energy Storage (EFRC-ETM). Compared to a hydrogen-on-demand design that includes thermal decomposition of organic hydrides in a catalytic reactor, the proposed approach is much simpler and does not require additional dehydrogenation catalysts or heat exchangers. Further, this approach utilizes the advantages of a flow battery (i.e., separation of power and energy, ease of transport and storage of liquid fuels) with fuels that have system energy densities similar to current hydrogen PEM fuel cells. EFRC challenges. Two major EFRC challenges were electrocatalysis and transport phenomena. The electrocatalysis challenge addresses fundamental processes which occur at a single molecular catalyst (microscopic level) and involve electron and proton transfer between the hydrogen rich and hydrogen depleted forms of organic liquid fuel and the catalyst. To form stable, non-radical dehydrogenation products from the organic liquid fuel, it is necessary to ensure fast transport of at least two electrons and two protons (per double bond formation). The same is true for the reverse hydrogenation reaction. The transport phenomena challenge addresses transport of electrons to/from the electrocatalyst and the current collector as well as protons across the polymer membrane. Additionally it addresses prevention of organic liquid fuel, water and oxygen transport through the PEM. In this challenge, the transport of protons or molecules involves multiple sites or a continuum (macroscopic level) and water serves as a proton conducting medium for the majority of known sulfonic acid based PEMs. Proton transfer in the presence of prospective organic liquid fuels was studied. During EFRC program various types of electrocatalysts, classes of fuels, and membranes have been investigated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.086 |
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".