MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546677954 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726748

Addressing key challenges in transportation mode electrification

2016· article· en· W2546677954 on OpenAlexafffund
Curran Crawford, Anaissia Franca, John Jankowski-Walsh Daniel Clancy, Alyona Ivanova, Nima H. Tehrani, Pouya Amid, Sahand Behboodi, David P. Chassin, Ned Djlali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsKey (lock)ElectrificationComputer scienceMode (computer interface)Computer securityEngineeringElectricityElectrical engineeringHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle electrification offers a tremendous potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions in transportation in BC, which account for 24% of total provincial emissions. Battery and drivetrain developments have enabled personal electric vehicles (EVs) to start to penetrate the market, but there remain large opportunities in other parts of the transportation sector. The program of research described in this paper is directed toward exploring these additional opportunities. Bus fleets, and other commercial fleets, present unique challenges and opportunities compared to personal EVs and are being explored in concert with fleet operators. E-bikes enable personal mobility and may also afford health co-benefits that can offer overall financial benefits useful in shaping policy. Comparison between battery-electric and fuel-cell electrified drivetrains is also important to understand the overall round-trip and life-cycle relative efficiencies. These studies are all embedded in a number of modeling frameworks that enable studies of grid-interactions of the vehicles with the grid, in particular taking into account temporally and spatially varying GHG intensities, inter-jurisdictional trading, stochastic planning and operation, and demand response (DR) opportunities. The research is ongoing, so the current paper highlights expected impacts and contributions of the various lines of investigation.

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)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207