MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500860978 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2007.905344

Defining Power Components in Nonsinusoidal Unbalanced Polyphase Systems: The Issues

2007· article· en· W2500860978 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyphase systemElectric power systemNonlinear systemControl theory (sociology)Power (physics)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringFrequency domainControl engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining power components for unbalanced three-phase systems operating under nonsinusoidal conditions is an area of active research which spawned many theories. The approaches may be classified into two groups: the first is a bottom-up approach that extends well accepted definition of power components for single-phase systems operating under ideal sinusoidal situations to the case of unbalanced three-phase systems in nonsinusoidal situations. The second group involves a top-down approach that tries to offer a definition for nonlinear polyphase systems in nonsinusoidal situations and apply it to linear single phase systems in sinusoidal situations by considering the former as the general case and the latter as a special case. This paper summarizes previously published approaches and concludes that none of the approaches in the literature can lead to power components definitions that satisfy all required power properties. Different analysis tools other than those based on frequency or time domain are recommended in this paper for future work.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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