MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006987799 · doi:10.1155/2014/524740

Application of Compressive Sampling in Computer Based Monitoring of Power Systems

2014· article· en· W2006987799 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

VenueAdvances in Computer Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremNyquist rateSampling (signal processing)SIGNAL (programming language)Computer sciencePower (physics)Data acquisitionSampling theoryElectronic engineeringAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringPhysicsSample size determination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shannon’s Nyquist theorem has always dictated the conventional signal acquisition policies. Power system is not an exception to this. As per this theory, the sampling rate must be at least twice the maximum frequency present in the signal. Recently, compressive sampling (CS) theory has shown that the signals can be reconstructed from samples obtained at sub-Nyquist rate. Signal reconstruction in this theory is exact for “sparse signals” and is near exact for compressible signals provided certain conditions are satisfied. CS theory has already been applied in communication, medical imaging, MRI, radar imaging, remote sensing, computational biology, machine learning, geophysical data analysis, and so forth. CS is comparatively new in the area of computer based power system monitoring. In this paper, subareas of computer based power system monitoring where compressive sampling theory has been applied are reviewed. At first, an overview of CS is presented and then the relevant literature specific to power systems is discussed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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