MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107617316 · doi:10.1109/poweri.2006.1632628

Comparison of performance of various ferroresonance suppressing methods in inductive and capacitive voltage transformers

2006· article· en· W2107617316 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

Venue2006 IEEE Power India Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFerroresonance in electricity networksTransformerCapacitive sensingElectronic circuitVoltageElectrical engineeringElectronic engineeringCurrent transformerEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To avoid or damp out ferroresonance in inductive and capacitive voltage transformers, a few ferroresonance damping methods have been proposed and used in these instruments. In this paper, some of the suppressing circuits are reviewed. Specifications of these circuits and the effects of various parameters on their performances are discussed. Furthermore, using frequency domain analysis, the effects of the suppression circuits on the measured voltage signal and overall characteristics of the voltage transformers in normal operating conditions are investigated. Using time domain simulations, the occurrence of ferroresonance in inductive and capacitive voltage transformers is studied and the effects of the suppressing circuits on the transient performance of these transformers and damping out ferroresonance are investigated and compared to each other

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.292 · 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