MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070539706 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2014.6900971

Comparison of DTFC and vector control techniques for PMSM drive with loss minimization approach

2014· article· en· W2070539706 on OpenAlexaff
M. Nasir Uddin, HongBin Zou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSensorless Control of Electric Motors
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)MinificationVector controlTorqueContext (archaeology)SalientControl (management)Computer sciencePermanent magnet synchronous motorSynchronous motorEngineeringControl engineeringInduction motorPhysicsArtificial intelligenceVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a comparison between direct torque-flux control (DTFC) and vector control (VC) techniques for salient type permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) drive in the context of loss minimization and dynamic responses. The same model based loss minimization algorithm (LMA) is utilized with both DTFC and VC based PMSM drives to compare their efficiency performances. It is found from simulation results that the LMA based DTFC provides better efficiency than that of LMA based VC technique. On the other hand, the VC technique provides better dynamic response than that of DTFC based PMSM drive.

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 score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSensorless Control of Electric MotorsFrench-language works237,207