MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376871049 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-35150-3

Life cycle environmental impact assessment for battery-powered electric vehicles at the global and regional levels

2023· article· en· W4376871049 on OpenAlexaff
Hongliang Zhang, Bingya Xue, Songnian Li, Yajuan Yu, Xi Li, Zeyu Chang, Haohui Wu, Yuchen Hu, Kai Huang, Lei Liu, Lai Chen, Yuefeng Su

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Life-cycle assessmentComputer scienceEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringBiologyEngineeringEcologyEconomicsProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an important part of electric vehicles, lithium-ion battery packs will have a certain environmental impact in the use stage. To analyze the comprehensive environmental impact, 11 lithium-ion battery packs composed of different materials were selected as the research object. By introducing the life cycle assessment method and entropy weight method to quantify environmental load, a multilevel index evaluation system was established based on environmental battery characteristics. The results show that the Li-S battery is the cleanest battery in the use stage. In addition, in terms of power structure, when battery packs are used in China, the carbon footprint, ecological footprint, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, human toxicity cancer and human toxicity noncancer are much higher than those in the other four regions. Although the current power structure in China is not conducive to the sustainable development of electric vehicles, the optimization of the power structure is expected to make electric vehicles achieve clean driving in China.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations68
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207