MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114807490 · doi:10.1109/tec.2020.3047983

A Review of Predictive Control Techniques for Switched Reluctance Machine Drives. Part I: Fundamentals and Current Control

2020· review· en· W3114807490 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego F. Valencia, Rasul Tarvirdilu-Asl, Cristian García, José Rodríguez, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMultilevel Inverters and Converters
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorModel predictive controlControl engineeringControl (management)Computer scienceCurrent (fluid)Machine controlControl theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceRotor (electric)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This two-part paper presents a review of the predictive control techniques applied in switched reluctance machine (SRM) drives. The objective is to promote the applications of predictive control-based strategies in these machines, given its potential to develop high-performance operation and make SRM more suitable for practical scenarios. Part I of this survey presents all fundamental concepts of SRM drives, predictive control and the adopted classification, and a literature review of predictive current control (PCC) strategies. The control techniques are analyzed according to their modelling approach, switching behaviour and calculation of optimal input. A performance comparison is also presented, and the current challenges, improvement opportunities and future trends of PCC in SRM are 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Energy ConversionSame topicMultilevel Inverters and ConvertersFrench-language works237,207