MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088523737 · doi:10.1109/mie.2020.2964814

Advanced Fault Diagnosis for Lithium-Ion Battery Systems: A Review of Fault Mechanisms, Fault Features, and Diagnosis Procedures

2020· review· en· W3088523737 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

VenueIEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFault (geology)Battery (electricity)Reliability engineeringSAFERLithium-ion batteryLithium (medication)Computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringEmbedded systemComputer securityPower (physics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium (Li)-ion batteries have become the mainstream energy storage solution for many applications, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and smart grids. However, various faults in a Li-ion battery system (LIBS) can potentially cause performance degradation and severe safety issues. Developing advanced fault diagnosis technologies is becoming increasingly critical for the safe operation of LIBS. This article provides a comprehensive review of the mechanisms, features, and diagnosis of various faults in LIBSs, including internal battery faults, sensor faults, and actuator faults. Future trends in the development of fault diagnosis technologies for a safer battery system are presented and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.271 · 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