MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210892186 · doi:10.1109/dft52944.2021.9568353

Fault Tolerance for Islandable-Microgrid Sensors

2021· article· en· W3210892186 on OpenAlexaff
V.K. Jain, Glenn H. Chapman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMicrogridIslandingComputer scienceFault toleranceFault (geology)Very-large-scale integrationSoftware deploymentChipElectronic engineeringFast Fourier transformTransient (computer programming)Embedded systemDistributed generationVoltageEngineeringElectrical engineeringDistributed computingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents defect tolerance strategies for islandable-microgrid sensors both at the sensor level and at the matrix (or deployment) level. A microgrid is a group of interconnected distributed power/energy sources and loads with well-defined electrical boundaries that act as a single controllable entity with respect to the main grid or other micro-grids, and can connect or disconnect from them to operate in both grid-connected or island modes. Often the control for islanding depends on the monitored voltage and frequency - and sometimes the phase and even the harmonic content, of the units involved. Therefore, accurate estimation of these parameters - especially in transient modes - is critical for successful islanding. We propose Interpolated FFT for this objective, which does not need adaptation and appears to perform well with high accuracy. Also, IpFFT can be implemented on a chip, and is therefore amenable to distributed deployment. Defect tolerance in the sensor system is important for such sensors including fabrication-time yield enhancement, in field self-repair, and system level recovery. The paper discusses a VLSI architecture for the IpFFT algorithm, needed IC cells, with emphasis on defect and fault tolerance from the VLSI chip point of view.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207