MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967283993 · doi:10.1109/epec.2012.6474980

Evaluation of steady-state and dynamic performance of a synchronized phasor measurement unit

2012· article· en· W1967283993 on OpenAlexaff
Dinesh Rangana Gurusinghe, Athula Rajapakse, Krish Narendra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhasor measurement unitPhasorUnits of measurementSynchronization (alternating current)Computer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemSteady state (chemistry)State (computer science)SIGNAL (programming language)Dynamic testingControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringEngineeringReliability engineeringElectric power systemControl (management)TelecommunicationsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is critically important to understand steady-state and dynamic performance of phasor measurement units (PMUs) to ensure reliable and secure operation of the synchrophasor based wide area monitoring, control, and protection systems. The recently published IEEE Standard C37.118.1 provides necessary guidelines to characterize both steady-state and dynamic performance of a PMU. This paper presents a performance evaluation methodology according to the IEEE Standard C37.118.1 and discusses the practical issues in the test environment. Results of the steady-state and dynamic responses tests on an actual PMU are also presented. The PMU performance evaluation approach of this paper is simple, repeatable, and can be performed at any facility with commonly available standard signal playback equipment. The method is based upon using test signals that are mathematically generated from a signal model and play backed into the PMU with precise global position system (GPS) synchronization.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207