MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536065588 · doi:10.1109/epc.2007.4520341

Assessment of Efficiency Improvement Techniques for Future Power Electronics Intensive Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drive Trains

2007· article· en· W2536065588 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Li, Sheldon S. Williamson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsCommercializationGreenhouse gasHybrid vehicleElectric vehicleTrainEnvironmental economicsBattery electric vehicleEconomic shortageGlobal warmingFuel efficiencyAutomotive engineeringBattery (electricity)EngineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)BusinessClimate changeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is obvious that the transportation sector consumes a large portion of the global oil and emits a vast amount of greenhouse gases (GHG). Furthermore, sets of serious issues, such as environmental pollution, global warming, and petroleum shortage have been brought to the attention of governments worldwide. For the latest two decades, with the intention of meeting the rigorous governmental environment regulations, researchers and vehicle manufactures have been seeking an alternative way to reduce GHG emission and developing a more efficient way to make use of the oil resources. Many studies indicate that electrifying the drive train is the trend of future vehicle development. But in short term, due to commercial conflicts and technical reasons, hybridizing is a popular vehicle alternative. In this paper, an overview of the history of efficiency improvement in terms of hybrid electrical vehicle (HEV) system configurations, battery technologies, power electronic converter topologies, and motor selection will be presented. In addition, the potentials of using HEV and electric vehicle (EV) technologies, to reduce GHG emissions and overall oil consumption, are discussed in detail. Finally, few realistic conflicts and commercialization issues for using the above mentioned efficiency improving techniques are also highlighted in this paper.

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 score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207