D2.1 Quasi-harmonized testing protocol for low and high temperature electrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document provides experimental testing protocols for assessing critical factors driving perfor-mance degradation of water electrolysis cells and stacks that will be used in the framework of the funded project DELYCIOUS (Project number: 101192075). It corresponds to the deliverable D2.1 of WP 2 Lab scale testing.The protocol will be applied to three different electrolysis technologies: Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis (PEMEL), Alkaline Electrolysis (AEL), Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOEL). Albeit the net chemical reaction remains the same in the three encompassed technologies, the nature of the materials and conditions employed differs. This translates in differences in the experimental conditions and protocols required to assess the performance degradation mechanisms affecting the three technologies. Never-theless, based on the similarity of the type of key degradation effects under examination, their out-comes and their means of determination, this document is defined as “quasi-harmonized testing pro-tocol”.These protocols are intended for use in the framework of the project to highlight key degradation mechanisms and their operational causes using advanced monitoring and diagnostic tools developed in the framework of DELYCIOUS, ultimately allowing to develop, within the duration of the project, operational scenarios to improve cell/stack lifetime.Their use in other contexts by both the research community and industry, for research and develop-ment (R&D) purposes as benchmarking aid is welcomed.A review of the three technologies, in terms of a detailed description of their functionality, materials employed at stack and cell level as well as the current developments, is outside the scope of this docu-ment and only definitions deemed necessary for understanding the protocol will be recalled in text.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".