MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556836235 · doi:10.1109/iecon.2015.7392932

Stability and accuracy evaluation of a power hardware in the loop (PHIL) interface with a photovoltaic micro-inverter

2015· article· en· W2556836235 on OpenAlexaff
Onyinyechi Nzimako, R.P. Wierckx

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsRTDS Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterface (matter)Photovoltaic systemSoftwareStability (learning theory)InverterPower (physics)Computer scienceRepresentation (politics)Topology (electrical circuits)Electronic engineeringHardware-in-the-loop simulationGridElectrical engineeringEngineeringEmbedded systemVoltagePhysicsOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stability and accuracy of PHIL simulation depends upon the characteristics of the interface between the RTS and the hardware device under test. Even when stable PHIL is achieved, the non-idealities in the PHIL interface introduces inaccuracies in the simulation results. Software models that include representation of the PHIL interface provide a method to evaluate the stability and accuracy of a PHIL interface. In most instances the required parameters and circuit topology of the power devices that are to be tested are unavailable, thus making it difficult to prepare the required software models. This paper will discuss the challenges of evaluating the stability and accuracy of a PHIL simulation with a grid-connected photovoltaic micro-inverter whose parameters and converter topology are unknown.

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)0.004
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
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207