MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957132793 · doi:10.18280/ejee.210215

A Comparative Study Between a Perturb and Observe Based Passivity and a Classical Perturb and Observe Based PI for the Thermoelectric Generator

2019· article· en· W2957132793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toualbia Asma, Tadjine Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Electrical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassivityThermoelectric effectThermoelectric generatorPiGenerator (circuit theory)Control theory (sociology)PhysicsComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineeringThermodynamicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A thermoelectric generator is silent and reliable, can be used to convert a temperature gradient to electricity based on the principles of Seebeck effect and vice versa.Very maximum power point tracker (MPPTs) are widely used in thermoelectric systems in order to extract the maximum available power for varying load and a given temperature difference.The perturbation and observation (P&O) algorithm are one of the most widely used due to ease of implementation.However, the operating point oscillates around the MPP that increase the loss of energy in the power of the TEM.Many improvements of the P&O algorithm have been proposed in order to reduce the oscillations.Therefore, in this paper, a P&O MPPT technique based on PI controller has been used for achieving the Maximum Power Point of a thermoelectric system.Performance of this technique is compared against the P&O based passivity control one through simulations.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Electrical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207