MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773934532 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2017.2719860

Classification Algorithms Comparison for Interturn Short-Circuit Recognition in Induction Machines Using Best-Fit 3-D-Ellipse Method

2017· article· en· W2773934532 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Julien Maítre, Bruno Bouchard, Abdenour Bouzouane, Sébastien Gaboury

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatorComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)EllipseAlgorithmInduction motorArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induction machines are omnipresent in industry because of their sturdiness and their ease of implementation. Nevertheless, these electrical motors still concede failures [e.g., interturn short circuit (ITSC) and broken rotor bar], which may lead to unplanned shutdowns. Consequently, manufacturing industries invest significant resources to avoid them with maintenance. Some studies have been achieved in this area of research, but any of the optimal solution (detecting, localizing, and estimating the degree of severity of failures) has been developed. Thus, in this paper, we propose to perform a comparison of performance and robustness between different classification algorithms, which can detect, approximate (severity of the failure), and localize (which phase) the ITSC in the stator phase(s) of the three-phase induction machine. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that such an evaluation has been suggested by using automated classification into predefined categories for ITSC in the stator phase(s) detection (recognition). This paper aims at providing an understanding vision of the recognition of failures that may occur, in order to develop future optimal solutions, which will be deployed in industry environment.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207