MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962571744 · doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2019.07.005

Blind and task-ware multi-cell battery management system

2019· article· en· W2962571744 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

VenueEngineering Science and Technology an International Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Battery (electricity)Task managementComputer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-Cell Battery (MCB) management and battery lifetime extension is vital for battery powered systems. This paper focuses on MCB scheduling and proposes the blind and task-ware scheduling methods to prolong MCB lifetime. The first step into designing an efficacious method to schedule MCB is using an MBC battery model for computer simulations. To do so, this research introduces an MCB model based on Peukert law and recovery effect. The effect of different time steps on MCB lifetime is studied and it is shown that there is only one optimum time step for each discharge pattern that maximizes the MCB lifetime. In the next step, blind and task-ware scheduling are introduced for MCB management. The blind method uses a neural network time step estimator to find the optimum time step for MCB at different discharge currents without any contemplation about drawn current pattern, but the task-ware MCB scheduling method considers the discharge pattern and finds the best set of solutions during a specific time interval. The simulations show that the task-ware scheduling method extends the battery lifetime on average by 31% compared to blind method.

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 score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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