MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790086761 · doi:10.1149/ma2018-01/21/1359

Physical-Statistical Modeling and Analyses of Catalyst Degradation in PEM Fuel Cells

2018· article· en· W2790086761 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Baroody, Drew Stolar, Michael Eikerling

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteProton exchange membrane fuel cellMaterials scienceCatalysisPlatinumDurabilityDegradation (telecommunications)Chemical engineeringProcess engineeringParticle (ecology)PolymerMonte Carlo methodEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceNuclear engineeringChemistryFuel cellsComposite materialEngineeringElectrodeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platinum durability in the catalyst layers of polymer electrolyte fuel cells is a major challenge that delays the full commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. This work presents a physical-statistical model of platinum degradation. The modeling framework of the Pt degradation model encompasses the main processes at the particle level, namely catalyst dissolution, redeposition, coagulation, and detachment, and it accounts for the effluence of Pt ions into the polymer electrolyte membrane. Data sets analyzed with the model encompass information on changes in electrochemically active surface area, particle radius distribution, Pt mass distribution, and thickness of the catalyst layer. A systematic algorithm is developed to process experimental inputs and generate output information on kinetic rate parameters. The model-based data treatment proceeds in two stages: (i) statistical exploration of the complete parameter space using Monte Carlo techniques and (ii) an optimization routine to deconvolute contributions to degradation by different mechanisms and determination of the pertinent set of parameters. Model outcomes contribute to fuel cell performance and lifetime evaluation, development of strategies for degradation mitigation, and calibration of efforts in design and fabrication of catalyst materials and catalyst layers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207