MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598797644 · doi:10.1049/iet-est.2016.0060

Characterisation of the electric drive of EV: on‐road versus off‐road method

2017· article· en· W2598797644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Electrical Systems in Transportation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive engineeringElectric carsEngineeringRoad transportForensic engineeringTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For system design, analysis of global performance and energy management of electric vehicles (EVs), it is common to use the efficiency map of electric traction drive. The characterisation of the efficiency map with high accuracy is then an important issue. In this study, an on‐road method and an off‐road method are compared experimentally to determine the efficiency map of electric drive of EVs. The off‐road method requires a dedicated experimental test bed, which is expensive and time consuming. The on‐road method is achieved directly in‐vehicle. Experimental data, recorded during an on‐road driving cycle, are used to determine the efficiency map using non‐intrusive measurements from global positioning system antenna, voltage and current sensors. A versatile experimental setup is used to compare both methods on the same platform. A maximal efficiency difference of 6% is achieved in most of the torque–speed plane. It is shown that, in an energetic point of view, both methods yield similar results.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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