MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1687451729 · doi:10.1109/pess.2002.1043279

Comparative evaluation of three-phase PWM voltage- and current-source converter topologies in FACTS applications

2003· article· en· W1687451729 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic engineeringVoltage sourceNetwork topologyTopology (electrical circuits)InductorWaveformBoost converterComputer sciencePulse-width modulationElectrical engineeringVoltageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, all of the existing and planned converter-based FACTS controllers are realized based on the voltage-source converter topology. With the evolution of high-performance semiconductor switches and super-conducting materials for inductors, and also with the development of new modeling and control techniques, current-source converter topology is gaining ground in competition with the voltage-source converter topology in high-power applications, including FACTS controllers. In this paper, the voltage- and current-source converter topologies are compared from different viewpoints of device rating, DC-side energy storage requirement, AC-side waveform quality, start-up, and cost. The comparative evaluation of the two topologies is performed based on analysis, as well as experimental results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.259 · 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