MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311666661 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2015.2444880

New Procedure for Computation of Time Delays in Propagation Function Fitting for Transient Modeling of Cables

2015· article· en· W2311666661 on OpenAlexaff
Ilhan Koçar, Jean Mahseredjian

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExponential functionTransient (computer programming)AdmittanceTransfer functionControl theory (sociology)Transmission lineCurve fittingFunction (biology)ComputationElectric power transmissionModalRational functionPhase (matter)Computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineeringElectrical impedancePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The solution of traveling-wave equations for transient analysis of transmission lines and cables requires the identification of propagation function and characteristic admittance. A given modal propagation function can be approximated as a rational transfer function associated with an exponential time delay term. Time delays should be properly assigned prior to fitting in order to compensate excessive phase lag and avoid poor fitting results. In this paper, the existing time delay calculation formula of the universal line model (ULM) is first demonstrated using the Bode's magnitude-phase relation and its error source is explained. The underlying assumption is that a modal propagation function is a minimum phase system once a suitable time delay is removed. However, the numerical implementation of the procedure can generate delays that result in high fitting errors. Then, this paper contributes to a new method for estimating time delays and improving propagation function fitting accuracy.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207