MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256987195 · doi:10.1049/joe.2015.0157

Evaluation of maximum power point tracking in hydrokinetic energy conversion systems

2015· article· en· W2256987195 on OpenAlexafffund
Jahangir Khan, John E. Quaicoe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandBC Hydro (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaximum power point trackingMaximum power principlePower (physics)Computer scienceTracking (education)Point (geometry)Control theory (sociology)Wind powerControl (management)Power controlScheme (mathematics)Control engineeringEngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximum power point tracking is a mature control issue for wind, solar and other systems. On the other hand, being a relatively new technology, detailed discussion on power tracking of hydrokinetic energy conversion systems are generally not available. Prior to developing sophisticated control schemes for use in hydrokinetic systems, existing know‐how in wind or solar technologies can be explored. In this study, a comparative evaluation of three generic classes of maximum power point scheme is carried out. These schemes are (a) tip speed ratio control, (b) power signal feedback control, and (c) hill climbing search control. In addition, a novel concept for maximum power point tracking: namely, extremum seeking control is introduced. Detailed and validated system models are used in a simulation environment. Potential advantages and drawbacks of each of these schemes are summarised.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of EngineeringSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207