A Review of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Powertrain Technologies: Diesel Engine Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas emissions from the freight transportation sector are a significant contributor to climate change, pollution, and negative health impacts because of the common use of heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDVs). Governments around the world are working to transition away from diesel HDVs and to electric HDVs, to reduce emissions. Battery electric HDVs and hydrogen fuel cell HDVs are two available alternatives to diesel engines. Each diesel engine HDV, battery-electric HDV, and hydrogen fuel cell HDV powertrain has its own advantages and disadvantages. This work provides a comprehensive review to examine the working mechanism, performance metrics, and recent developments of the aforementioned HDV powertrain technologies. A detailed comparison between the three powertrain technologies, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each, is also presented, along with future perspectives of the HDV sector. Overall, diesel engine in HDVs will remain an important technology in the short-term future due to the existing infrastructure and lower costs, despite their high emissions, while battery-electric HDV technology and hydrogen fuel cell HDV technology will be slowly developed to eliminate their barriers, including costs, infrastructure, and performance limitations, to penetrate the HDV market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it