MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612920883 · doi:10.1109/icit.2017.7913067

General impedance representation of passive devices based on measurement

2017· article· en· W2612920883 on OpenAlexaff
Tung Ngoc Nguyen, Handy Fortin Blanchette, Ruxi Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEMIElectrical impedanceElectronic engineeringInductanceCapacitive sensingComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Filter (signal processing)Electrical engineeringEngineeringElectromagnetic interference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impedance modeling of passive device is mandatory for EMI prediction of power converter on printed board circuit (PCB) level. The black-box node-to-node impedance function (NIF) model, which extracts the connecting impedance matrix from measurement, can be used as the most general representation. However, the most recent development of this model is still based on the assumption of ideal shorting path used in measurement, which is not true since its small inductance results in high impedance in EMI frequency. It interacts with small inductive and high capacitive impedance of popular passive devices used in the power converter, i.e. common choke, LC filter, power supply, resulting in computational errors of the connecting impedance matrix. In this paper, the errors in the model created by shorting path impedance is analyzed and eliminated by employing the Newton-Raphson (NR) iterative method. This work helps to improve the precision of the model, herein called general impedance representation (GIR); and hence, enables it to be applied for all kinds of passive devices without knowledge of the device's specific model. The experimental results are presented to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed GIR.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise SuppressionFrench-language works237,207