MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242749412 · doi:10.1109/ppic.2013.6656040

Review of upcoming motor efficiency regulations in the U.S.

2013· article· en· W4242749412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J Malinowski, Bill Hoyt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaggingScope (computer science)Efficient energy useRaising (metalworking)Process (computing)Computer scienceEnvironmental economicsEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchBusinessEconomicsElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must review efficiency standards every five years and make recommendations on changes. This paper will provide an update on current rules under study for 1 through 500 HP AC induction motors. The DOE is evaluating raising motor efficiency above premium levels by one to three NEMA efficiency bands. The motor industry feels that a better solution is to standardize on premium efficiency levels and broaden the scope of coverage to include many designs not presently covered. NEMA has formed a coalition with many energy advocates that also support the proposal.We will discuss the DOE rule making process, study and proposals and discuss the effect to motor users if they are adopted. The coalition proposal will be discussed showing that stabilizing at premium levels will provide the least impact to the end user. Motor regulations for Canada and Mexico generally follow what is adopted in the US. Europe and the rest of the world are also adopting Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS) but are lagging the US by a few years.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207