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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Khalid Elamari, Luiz A. C. Lopes

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
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

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207