MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971664196 · doi:10.1049/iet-est.2018.5076

Design of a mutually coupled external‐rotor direct drive E‐bike switched reluctance motor

2019· article· en· W2971664196 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Electrical Systems in Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorRotor (electric)StatorTorqueAutomotive engineeringReluctance motorMagnetEngineeringWound rotor motorMagnetic reluctanceControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringInduction motorPhysicsVoltageControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a concentrated‐wound exterior‐rotor direct‐drive electric bicycle (e‐bike) mutually coupled switched reluctance motor (MCSRM) has been designed to match the performance parameters and dimensional constraints of a commercially available permanent magnet e‐bike motor. Different stator and rotor pole configurations are compared for a 3‐phase MCSRM. During the design process, many parameters have been evaluated and analysed. The finalised performance capabilities of all pole configurations are summarised, and the choice of pole configuration for the final design is justified. The full dynamic torque‐speed performance of the finalised 15/10 MCSRM is presented, along with a detailed thermal analysis. Finally, the MCSRM performance is compared to a 12/16 non‐coupled SRM and a commercially available permanent magnet motor.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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