MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-Simulation Interfacing Capabilities in Device-Level Power Electronic Circuit Simulation Tools: An Overview

2015· article· en· W1725611375 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

VenueInternational Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems/International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterfacingComputer scienceCo-simulationSimulationElectronic circuit simulationPower (physics)SalientElectronic circuitComputer hardwareElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power electronic circuit simulation today has become increasingly more demanding in both the speed and accuracy. Whilst almost every simulator has its own advantages and disadvantages, co-simulations are becoming more prevalent. This paper provides an overview of the co-simulation capabilities of device-level circuit simulators. More specifically, a listing of device-level simulators with their salient features are compared and contrasted. The co-simulation interfaces between several simulation tools are discussed. A case study is presented to demonstrate the co-simulation between a device-level simulator (PSIM) interfacing a system-level simulator (Simulink), and a finite element simulation tool (FLUX). Results demonstrate the necessity and convenience as well as the drawbacks of such a comprehensive simulation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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