MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911958716 · doi:10.1109/pes.2005.1489346

DC voltage limit compliance in voltage-source converter based multi-terminal HVDC

2005· article· en· W1911958716 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

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHVDC Systems and Fault Protection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDropout voltageForward converterElectrical engineeringVoltageĆuk converterVoltage regulationVoltage sourceLow-dropout regulatorVoltage multiplierHVDC converter stationVoltage dividerBoost converterReset (finance)Flyback converterVoltage referenceVoltage regulatorComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)EngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By adjusting V/sub ref/, the voltage reference setting of the DC voltage regulator or the power reference settings P/sub i//sup sp/ of the remaining converter stations, the steady-state DC bus voltages of the voltage-source converter based multi-terminal HVDC system can be made to comply with voltage limits. When any one of the converter stations is lost, over-voltage can destroy a converter station within a fraction of a second. As there is no time to reset the settings, the references must be determined in the very beginning to anticipate the accidental loss of a converter. The paper shows how the well-known voltage sensitivity method and the Lagrange multiplier method are adapted successfully to determine the reference settings for pre- and post-fault conditions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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