MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097494045 · doi:10.1109/tie.2014.2386794

Power Quality Issues in Railway Electrification: A Comprehensive Perspective

2014· article· en· W2097494045 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrificationPerspective (graphical)Quality (philosophy)EngineeringTraction substationTraction power networkPower (physics)Power qualityCompensation (psychology)Electric power systemComputer scienceTransport engineeringElectrical engineeringElectricityVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of railway electrification, power quality has been a main problem in railway networks because of their special characteristics. Many ways of power quality improvement have been investigated and applied to ac and dc traction systems through railway electrification history. This paper presents a perspective on power quality issues through railway electrification development and investigates the necessity of power quality and system requirements for appropriate power quality. Compensation strategies are classified and compared. This aims to provide a comprehensive perspective of the power quality issue in railway power/distribution networks for researchers and engineers working on railway electrification. Less than 100 research articles are referenced for researchers to obtain good background information.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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