MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101098506 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2009.2016824

An Investigation on the Selection of Filter Topologies for Passive Filter Applications

2009· article· en· W2101098506 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 Power Delivery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork topologyHarmonicFilter (signal processing)Electronic engineeringElectronic filter topologyActive filterElectronic filterPrototype filterHarmonic analysisFilter designTopology (electrical circuits)Computer sciencePower system harmonicsEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Total harmonic distortionElectrical engineeringAcousticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsVoltageComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passive filters have been a very effective solution for power system harmonic mitigation. These filters have several topologies that give different frequency response characteristics. The current industry practice is to combine filters of different topologies to achieve a certain harmonic filtering goal. However, there is a lack of information on how to select different filter topologies. This decision is based on the experience of present filter designers. The goal of this paper is to investigate the filter topology selection issue. It presents our research results on the effectiveness and costs of various filter topologies for harmonic mitigation. The research results show that the association of three single-tuned filters is a very appropriate solution for most typical harmonic problems.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
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