MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897080808 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.09.347

State of Health Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries

2018· article· en· W2897080808 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

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState of healthBattery (electricity)State of chargeLithium-ion batteryLithium (medication)Computer scienceReliability engineeringInternal resistanceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)MedicinePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state of health (SoH) of lithium-ion batteries and battery packs must be monitored effectively to prevent failure and accidents, and to prolong the useful lifetime of the batteries. Many studies have suggested that temperature and discharge/charge current rate are the primary factors causing battery aging. However, due to the complex and often poorly understood internal dynamics of lithium-ion batteries, no reliable mathematical models to predict the battery SoH are available. In this article, we introduce two SoH prediction models: (1) the decreasing battery V 0+ model and (2) the increasing CV charge capacity model. Additionally, we derive a simple thermal model for the cell based on variation of temperature data.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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