MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742067426 · doi:10.1109/itec.2017.7993319

Li-ion battery model performance for automotive drive cycles with current pulse and EIS parameterization

2017· article· en· W2742067426 on OpenAlex
Phillip J. Kollmeyer, Andreas Hackl, Ali Emadi

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattery (electricity)CapacitanceEquivalent circuitElectrical impedanceVoltageParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Output impedanceEquivalent series resistanceRC circuitImpedance parametersTransfer functionControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringMaterials scienceElectrical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringElectrodeCapacitorPower (physics)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine different battery modeling approaches, three equivalent circuit battery model types and two battery model parametrization methods are investigated in this paper. A simple model, consisting an open circuit voltage and a series resistance, is compared with two enhanced approaches. The first enhanced approach includes a Warburg Impedance to capture diffusion and the second adds two parallel RC circuit pairs to capture double layer capacitance and charge transfer resistance effects. The model parameters are determined with either time or frequency domain test data and performance for both parameterization methods are compared. Finally, model accuracy is experimentally evaluated for a matrix of drive cycles and temperature values.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207