MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165757447 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2010.2096237

Practical Power Quality Charts for Motor Starting Assessment

2011· article· en· W2165757447 on OpenAlex
Xiaoyu Wang, Jing Yong, Wilsun Xu, Walmir Freitas

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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringEngineeringInduction motorComputer scienceElectric motorRisk analysis (engineering)VoltageElectrical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of motor starting on power quality can be assessed using detailed computer simulation studies. However, not every motor installation case needs such an extensive assessment. Utility planners are interested in quick evaluation of the potential impact of a motor installation proposal. Based on the findings, they can then determine if detailed case studies and what types of case studies are necessary. This paper presents three charts for motor starting planning according to three power quality concerns. These concerns are the amount of voltage drop caused by motor starting, the compliance to the ITIC curve, and the compliance to the IEC flicker meter limits. These charts can help utility planers to conduct quick and first-cut assessment of a motor starting situation. They also reveal the key factors affecting the motor starting related power quality concerns. The principles behind these charts are explained. Examples are given to show how to use them for quick assessment of motor starting impact.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.221 · 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