MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803359519 · doi:10.1149/2.0921807jes

Virtual Liquid Water Intrusion in Fuel Cell Gas Diffusion Media

2018· article· en· W2803359519 on OpenAlexafffund
Mayank Sabharwal, Jeff T. Gostick, Marc Secanell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAlberta EnergyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)VoxelThermal diffusivityIntrusionDiffusionLiquid waterGaseous diffusionMaterials scienceMechanicsChemistryGeologyThermodynamicsPhysicsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cluster based full morphology (CFM) model is developed to predict liquid water intrusion in GDLs. The CFM model is used to simulate water intrusion into a dry GDL microstructure obtained from μ-CT. Numerical water saturation distributions are compared to experimental μ-CT reconstructions of the same GDL sample at varying saturation levels. A quantitative validation of the CFM model results is then provided by studying the number of voxels in the image that contain water in both the CFM model results and the μ-CT reconstructions. Results reveal that CFM simulations showed 56–95.7% agreement in the liquid water voxels when compared to the μ-CT simulations for saturations in the range of 29–92.3%. Gas transport simulations are then performed on μ-CT and CFM partially saturated GDLs in order to study the validity of the CFM model images to estimate transport properties of partially saturated GDLs. A maximum error of 20% was observed between the predicted effective diffusivities obtained from CFM simulations and those obtained directly from simulations on the μ-CT data for saturations below 40%. Effective diffusivity predictions from the CFM simulations agree well with in-plane effective diffusivities in literature while the through-plane effective diffusivities were underpredicted by a factor of 2.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207