MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150381104 · doi:10.1109/mper.2002.4311770

A Practical Harmonic Resonance Guideline for Shunt Capacitor Applications

2002· article· en· W3150381104 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacitorChartHarmonicResonance (particle physics)GuidelinePower factorHarmonic analysisShunt (medical)VoltageElectric power systemControl theory (sociology)Electronic engineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)Electrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsAcousticsMedicineStatisticsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shunt capacitors are extensively used in power systems for voltage support and power factor correction. The proliferation of harmonic-producing loads significantly increases the possibility of system-capacitor resonance. As a result, a practical and easy-to-use procedure to estimate the severity of harmonic resonance is of good interest to industry. The objective of this paper is to present such a method. The paper first proposes a harmonic resonance index. By taking into account the IEEE harmonic limits and the capacitor loading limits, a harmonic resonance chart is developed. A detailed harmonic analysis of the system is needed only if the system condition is located in certain regions of the chart. Examples are given to show how the possibility and severity of harmonic resonance can be estimated using the proposed guideline.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.248 · 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