MétaCan
Menu
← all works

DC Microgrid Protection: A Comprehensive Review

2019· review· en· 353 citations· W2922402609 on OpenAlex· 10.1109/jestpe.2019.2904588

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
Genre
Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score
0.938
Threshold uncertainty score
1.000
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread
0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

DC microgrids have attracted significant attention over the last decade in both academia and industry. DC microgrids have demonstrated superiority over AC microgrids with respect to reliability, efficiency, control simplicity, integration of renewable energy sources, and connection of dc loads. Despite these numerous advantages, designing and implementing an appropriate protection system for dc microgrids remains a significant challenge. The challenge stems from the rapid rise of dc fault current which must be extinguished in the absence of naturally occurring zero crossings, potentially leading to sustained arcs. In this paper, the challenges of DC microgrid protection are investigated from various aspects including, dc fault current characteristics, ground systems, fault detection methods, protective devices, and fault location methods. In each part, a comprehensive review has been carried out. Finally, future trends in the protection of DC microgrids are briefly discussed.

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.

The record

Venue
IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
Topic
Islanding Detection in Power Systems
Field
Engineering
Canadian institutions
Queen's University
Funders
National Science Foundation
Keywords
MicrogridRenewable energyFault (geology)Reliability (semiconductor)Electrical engineeringComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes