MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042083933 · doi:10.18280/ejee.220302

Comparative Study Between Backstepping Adaptive and Field Oriented Controls for Doubly Fed Induction Motor

2020· article· en· W3042083933 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Electrical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPower Systems and Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacksteppingInduction motorField (mathematics)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceEngineeringMathematicsAdaptive controlArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a comparative study between field oriented control and Backstepping adaptive control for a doubly fed induction motor (DFIM) is proposed.At the beginning, the mathematical model of the DFIM is presented.Thereafter, these control strategies are described and designed, then implemented using the Matlab/Simulink environment.Finally, the different strategies are compared in terms of static and dynamic error, response time, overshoot and robustness.The results of the comparison clearly show that the Backstepping adaptive control provides better performance and is characterized by high robustness vis-a-vis parametric variations.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.207 · 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