MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743602848 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2017.2714706

Comparison of Static Phase Shifter and Unified Power Flow Controller-Based Interphase

2017· article· en· W2743602848 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnified power flow controllerControl theory (sociology)TransformerQuadrature boosterFlexible AC transmission systemComputer scienceElectric power transmissionElectronic engineeringTransmission linePhase shift moduleElectric power systemEngineeringVoltagePower flowPower (physics)Electrical engineeringCurrent transformerControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic interphase power controller (IPC) presents the interesting features of simplicity and low cost but is less flexible than most flexible ac transmission system controllers. A compromise performance can be achieved by replacing the phase shifting transformers with a reduced rating dual unified power flow controller (UPFC) resulting in a unified IPC. The comparison of the basic, phase shifter-based, with a new UPFC-based, control logic is the main goal of this paper. The control variables of the dual UPFC are computed based on an optimization procedure to minimize a given cost function. The results show the higher capability of the proposed logic not only to control the current flow through the transmission line but also to achieve this task with lower branch currents that should lead to reduced power losses.

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)0.000
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 score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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