MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047928704 · doi:10.1109/itec.2014.6861763

Power electronic converters for 12/8 switched reluctance motor drives: A comparative analysis

2014· article· en· W2047928704 on OpenAlexafffund
Jin Ye, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorConvertersPower (physics)Electrical engineeringTorqueReluctance motorComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringElectronic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsVoltageRotor (electric)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, five popular power electronic converters for three-phase 12/8 switched reluctance motor (SRM) drives including asymmetric power electronic converter, N+1 power electroic converter, split AC power electronic converter, split DC power electronic converter, and C-dump power electronic converter are investigated and compared in terms of device ratings, cost, efficiency, torque ripples, average torque, and copper losses. Comparison results show that C-dump converter is a more promising candidate in high-performance SRM drives, while split AC converter is recommended in low-cost applications.

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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207