MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279241495 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2015.2487975

Prediction of Iron Losses Using Jiles–Atherton Model With Interpolated Parameters Under the Conditions of Frequency and Compressive Stress

2015· article· en· W2279241495 on OpenAlexaff
Sajid Hussain, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformStress (linguistics)Finite element methodMaterials scienceHysteresisExcitationCompressive strengthFerromagnetismMechanicsVoltagePhysicsThermodynamicsComposite materialCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The operating conditions, such as the frequency of excitation and mechanical stress in electrical machines, severely affect the magnetic behavior of ferromagnetic cores, which translates into increased iron losses. The physics-based hysteresis models, such as the Jiles-Atherton (JA) model, can incorporate the effects of operating conditions on iron losses and can be embedded in the finite-element simulations. In this paper, we have implemented the JA model to predict iron losses, and the effect of the frequency of the excitation waveform and compressive stress on the JA model parameters has been investigated. A simple approach is proposed to predict iron losses for any value of frequency and compressive stress using the original JA model equation. This approach not only reduces the computational complexity of the problem, but also reduces the amount of material information required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207