MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127637594 · doi:10.1109/tia.2021.3057037

Investigation of Critical Parameters for Selecting Energy-Optimal Cruising Speed Using a Low-Computation Framework

2021· article· en· W3127637594 on OpenAlexaff
Ata Meshginqalam, Jennifer Bauman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationSPARK (programming language)MATLABEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)SpeedupInverterCritical speedControl engineeringAutomotive engineeringSimulationAlgorithmEngineeringVoltageArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMechanical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes a low-computation framework for on-board calculation of energy-optimal cruising speed, and uses the framework to investigate the critical parameters for energy-optimal cruising speed determination. The main features of the proposed framework are as follows: first, inclusion of all internal and external vehicle losses, particularly the accessory loads, which have a large impact on optimal cruising speed and have not been investigated in other works, second, use of accurate motor/inverter loss look-up-tables rather than approximated polynomial models, and, third, no requirement for connected data or knowledge of the future route, as the optimal cruising speed is calculated precisely for the current state of the vehicle and surroundings. To validate the framework, three electric vehicle models are developed in MATLAB/Simulink and tuned to match real-world data for a Chevrolet Bolt, Chevrolet Spark, and Tesla Model S. Furthermore, an algorithm is developed to determine near-optimal speed transitions when the optimal cruising speed changes.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207