MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024432173 · doi:10.1149/ma2020-01149mtgabs

Performance Optimization Based on Modeling of a Molten Carbonate Direct Carbon Fuel Cell

2020· article· en· W3024432173 on OpenAlexaff
Datong Song, Zhong Xie, Xinge Zhang, Wei Qu, Qianpu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolten carbonate fuel cellElectrolyteProcess engineeringMaterials scienceCarbonateCarbon fibersVolume (thermodynamics)Chemical engineeringChemistryEngineeringThermodynamicsElectrodeComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) converts the chemical energy in the carbon fuel directly into electricity without gasification and is considered as one of the most promising and highly efficient technologies in power generation, CO2 capture and sequestration. A molten carbonate direct carbon fuel cell uses solid carbon as fuel and molten carbonate as electrolyte. Modeling simulation, as a powerful complementary tool, can provide insights or guidance on where and how DCFC performance can be improved. In this work, a unit cell model for a molten carbonate DCFC is first presented. Second, a mathematical description of the performance optimization problem for the molten carbonate DCFC is proposed in which the working current density under a specified voltage is taken as the objective function and some geometrical parameters, such as porosity, solid material volume fractions, are taken as the optimization variables. The mathematical optimization problem is solved by using MATLAB software. The optimal volume fractions of solid electric conducting material and liquid electrolyte are obtained under different operation temperatures and bubble velocities.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→