MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004212242 · doi:10.1109/mia.2004.1256252

Ballast-on-a-Chip: Realistic Expectation or Technical Delusion?

2004· article· en· W2004212242 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 Industry Applications Magazine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced DC-DC Converters
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallastCrest factorAssertionPoint (geometry)EngineeringElectronic engineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringComputer scienceVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a discussion by leading ballast companies, about the feasibility and suitability of silicon integration for electronic ballasts. The discussion started with the question about which power transistors were the most suitable for a given application or ballast feature. Then the discussion moved on to optimization of passive components, and of the whole ballast as well, integration level for different market and products, electronic requirements based on lamp data. The next topic started with the assertion that lamp data has to be specified more precisely, if the performance of integrated solutions is to show improvements. The discussion then moved on to the crucial point of lamp performance with regard to the crest factor. Finally a review of the electronic ballasts and the conclusion of the panel discussion is shown.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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