MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009482386 · doi:10.1109/tia.2012.2226134

Comparison of Two Methods for Full-Load In Situ Induction Motor Efficiency Estimation From Field Testing in the Presence of Over/Undervoltages and Unbalanced Supplies

2012· article· en· W2009482386 on OpenAlexaff
Arbi Gharakhani Siraki, Pragasen Pillay

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction motorTorqueProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)EngineeringComputer scienceControl engineeringControl theory (sociology)VoltageControl (management)MathematicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous techniques with different levels of intrusion and accuracy have been proposed for in situ efficiency estimation. Among them, optimization-based techniques and the air-gap torque (AGT) method show promise when unbalanced supply conditions exist. In this paper, an optimization-based algorithm is proposed for in situ efficiency estimation of induction machines operating with over-/undervoltage and unbalanced supplies. In addition, a comprehensive study is done on the functionality and accuracy of the nonintrusive AGT method which is claimed to be one of the most promising methods in the literature. It is shown that the efficiency calculated by this method under field conditions cannot be used in the decision making process on replacement of the existing machines as well as the relevant calculations regarding the payback period. The research is supported by experimental results on two different induction machines.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207