MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387170312 · doi:10.1080/15435075.2023.2262006

Artificial intelligence-assisted optimization and multiphase analysis of polygon PEM fuel cells

2023· article· en· W4387170312 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Jabbary, Nader Pourmahmoud, Mir Ali Asghar Abdollahi, Marc A. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Green Energy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellComputational fluid dynamicsFuel efficiencyPower (physics)Hexagonal crystal systemComputer scienceResponse surface methodologyArtificial neural networkPower densityMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringFuel cellsAutomotive engineeringMathematical optimizationMathematicsMechanicsChemical engineeringEngineeringChemistryArtificial intelligenceThermodynamicsPhysicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces innovative, optimized hexagonal and pentagonal PEM fuel cell models. The inlet pressure and temperature serve as input parameters, while power consumption and output power are objective parameters. The results of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis are then trained with deep neural networks and modeled using polynomial regression. Target functions are derived using the Response Surface Method (RSM) and optimized with the NSGA-II genetic algorithm. Compared to the base model, our optimized pentagonal and hexagonal PEM fuel cells significantly boost the output current density by 21.8% and 39.9%, respectively. Additionally, power consumption is lower: the pentagonal model uses 0.198%, and the hexagonal model uses 6.21% of the production power on average. Our proposed designs enhance PEM fuel cell performance by significantly boosting power production while minimizing power consumption.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Green EnergySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207