MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308866202 · doi:10.3390/wevj13110212

Regional Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Network Design Using Common Public Data

2022· article· en· W4308866202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathaniel S. Pearre, Lukas G. Swan, Erin Burbidge, Sarah Balloch, Logan Horrocks, Brendan Piper, Julia Anctil

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Electric Vehicle Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Electric vehicleTransport engineeringQueueing theoryComputer sciencePublic transportAutomotive engineeringEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicles rely on public fast charging when traveling outside a single charge range. Networks of fast charging hubs are a preferred solution, but should be deployed according to a design that avoids both redundant infrastructure representing overinvestment, and “charging deserts” which limit travel by EVs and thus inhibit EV adoption. We present a two-stage design strategy for a network of charging hubs relying on common public data including maps of roadways and electrical systems, and ubiquitous and readily accessible daily traffic volume data. First, the network design is based on the electrical distribution system, roadways, and a target inter-hub driving distance. Second, the number of fast chargers necessary at each hub to support expected vehicle kilometers is determined such that queuing to charge is infrequent. A case study to prepare Nova Scotia, Canada for the 2030 electric fleet of 15% of vehicles results in a network design with an average hub catchment area of 1230 km2 and 354 electric vehicles per fast charger, and ensures that they are equitably distributed and can enable travel by EV throughout the jurisdiction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Electric Vehicle JournalSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207