MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232857872 · doi:10.1002/9780470974001.f303053

Durability

2010· other· en· W4232857872 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

VenueHandbook of Fuel Cells · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsBallard Power Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityReliability (semiconductor)Resource (disambiguation)Degradation (telecommunications)Investment (military)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringBiochemical engineeringBusinessEngineeringPower (physics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Durability and reliability are necessary requirements for fuel cells to be introduced into the market place. However, activities necessary to meet these requirements are costly and time‐consuming. As a result, past experience and information is valuable and emphasis should be placed on ex situ and accelerated testing to minimize resource investment. In this contribution, gaps in knowledge are identified which could form the basis of further studies. The key components of performance degradation (kinetic, ohmic, mass transport) are briefly defined and provide a basis for the discussion on the sources of degradation (water management, impurities, reformate, materials, operating conditions, uniformity). Understanding of the factors affecting degradation leads to a discussion of possible mitigation strategies. Since the current state of the art is fragmentary and far from being comprehensive, further research efforts are required to clearly understand root causes, secondary effects and interactions in order to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for performance degradation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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