MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979617133 · doi:10.1088/0953-2048/22/7/075018

AC losses in thin superconductors: the integral equation method applied to stacks and windings

2009· article· en· W1979617133 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

VenueSuperconductor Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperconductivityComputationElectromagnetic coilSymmetry (geometry)Current (fluid)Current densityIntegral equationCritical currentDistribution (mathematics)PhysicsComputer scienceCondensed matter physicsMathematical analysisMathematicsThermodynamicsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a method for computing transport current ac losses in interacting thin superconductors. The method solves the integral equations for the sheet current density distribution and is specifically developed for those configurations where the symmetry of the current density distributions allows writing the equation in a self-consistent form, without the need for using an auxiliary 2D model to describe the interaction between superconducting tapes. This results in very short computation times and therefore the model can be very useful for optimizing the design of superconducting devices. The method has been tested for different cases of practical applications and the ac loss results have been compared with those obtained with analytical models and with experiments.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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