MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1689581663

A New Optimization Design Methodology Of Locomotive Transformers

2004· article· en· W1689581663 on OpenAlexaff
Liming Dai, Longfu Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Design & Process Science archive · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering optimizationEngineering design processTransformerGenetic algorithmEngineeringDesign processMeta-optimizationComputer-automated designComputer scienceMathematical optimizationControl engineeringOptimization problemWork in processAlgorithmMechanical engineeringMathematicsMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study develops a new genetic algorithm, Gene Controlling Genetic Algorithm (GCGA) for optimization design. In performing engineering design optimization, this genetic algorithm intends to maximize the utilization of the existing information such as practical design knowledge, existing relationships of design parameters and engineering experience. With GCGA, design optimization process becomes much efficient. Application of GCGA in optimizing an electric locomotive transformer design is provided in this study. Detailed procedures of optimization with GCGA are presented. In comparing with the traditional genetic algorithm such as EPGA, as indicated in the study, GCGA provides a global convergent solution with higher stability and faster speed. It is demonstrated that GCGA is an algorithm specifically suitable for optimizing complex designs in engineering practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrated Design & Process Science archiveSame topicPower Quality and HarmonicsFrench-language works237,207