MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510242493 · doi:10.1149/07514.0003ecst

(Plenary) Doing More with Less: Challenges for Catalyst Layer Design

2016· article· en· W2510242493 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Pütz, Darija Susac, Viatcheslav Berejnov, Juan Wu, Adam P. Hitchcock, Jürgen Stumper

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityAutomotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationCharacterization (materials science)Automotive industryReliability (semiconductor)Reduction (mathematics)CathodeLayer (electronics)CatalysisKey (lock)NanotechnologyComputer scienceReliability engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringProcess engineeringChemistryElectrical engineeringBusinessPhysicsAerospace engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses key elements supporting continuing progress towards the achievement of the automotive PEMFC commercialization targets, in particular the reduction of total precious metal (PGM) content. An approach for PGM loading reduction without associated increase in mass transport loss is proposed, recent progress in advanced CL structural characterization/imaging is reviewed and the reliability of loss breakdown as guide for further performance improvement is discussed. A list of bulk and interface functionalities for the cathode catalyst layer is defined and the availability of measurement tools for the associated properties reviewed.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.021

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207