MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065131663 · doi:10.1109/itec.2014.6861764

Design considerations for loosely coupled inductive power transfer (IPT) system for electric vehicle battery charging - A comprehensive review

2014· review· en· W2065131663 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

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Power Transfer Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum power transfer theoremElectric vehicleCompensation (psychology)Electric-vehicle batteryBattery (electricity)Electrical engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodWireless power transferComputer sciencePower (physics)Electronic engineeringAutomotive engineeringElectromagnetic coilPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently loosely coupled inductive power transfer (IPT) has gained worldwide attention for battery charging applications for electric vehicles (EVs). Since a high frequency operation is a must for transferring power inductively over a large air gap with reasonable efficiency, a careful design is needed. This paper reviews the basic design considerations for designing such a system. Critical design parameters, such as skin effect, proximity effect (at high frequency), and field-shaping techniques, to reduce leakage flux, has been demonstrated using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). In addition, different compensation technique and control strategies for IPT system has been 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Power Transfer SystemsFrench-language works237,207