MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224119702 · doi:10.1002/elsa.202100185

Accurately predicting transport properties of porous fibrous materials by machine learning methods

2022· article· en· W4224119702 on OpenAlexafffund
Taylr Cawte, Aimy Bazylak

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrochemical Science Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermal diffusivitySupport vector machineGradient boostingPermeability (electromagnetism)PorosityArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMass transportBiological systemElectrolyteMaterials sciencePorous mediumRegressionMachine learningMembraneChemistryComposite materialMathematicsStatisticsRandom forestEngineeringPhysicsThermodynamicsBiochemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Machine learning algorithms trained on data gathered from stochastically generated gas diffusion layers (GDLs) were used to predict key transport properties that govern effective mass transport behaviour in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. Specifically, we present the largest database in the present literature of stochastically generated fibrous GDL substrates (containing over 2000 unique materials) and the associated structural and transport properties determined via pore network modelling. Seven established machine learning algorithms were trained to predict the effective single‐phase permeability ( k sp ) and diffusivity ( D sp ), and the relative permeability ( k r ) and diffusivity ( D r ) of the generated materials using well‐defined material properties as input features. Gradient boosting regression (GBR), artificial neural network, and support vector regression were the best performing predictors of the single‐phase properties, all of which exhibited statistically insignificant differences in error. GBR provided the best prediction accuracy of relative transport properties.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrochemical Science AdvancesSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207