MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109927514 · doi:10.1109/psce.2011.5772545

Comparative stability analysis of DFIG-based wind farms and conventional synchronous generators

2011· article· en· W2109927514 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoubly fed electric machineControl theory (sociology)Induction generatorWind powerTurbinePermanent magnet synchronous generatorModal analysisAC powerEngineeringVoltageComputer scienceControl (management)Electrical engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comparative stability analysis of conventional synchronous generators and wind farms based on double feed induction generators (DFIG). Based on an appropriate DFIG wind generator model, PV curves, modal analysis and time domain simulations are used to study the effect on system stability of replacing conventional generation by DFIG-based wind generation on the IEEE 14-bus benchmark system, for both fixed power factor and voltage control operation. The results show that the oscillatory behavior associated with the dominant mode of the synchronous generator is improved when the DFIG-based wind turbine is connected to the system; this improvement in the damping ratios is more evident when the wind turbines are operated with terminal voltage control.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207