MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294168589 · doi:10.3390/su141710912

Linear Permanent Magnet Vernier Generators for Wave Energy Applications: Analysis, Challenges, and Opportunities

2022· article· en· W4294168589 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Reza Jafari, Pedram Asef, Mohammad Ardebili, Mohammad Mahdi Derakhshani

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsVernier scaleMagnetRenewable energyComputer sciencePower (physics)Energy (signal processing)Electronic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvesting energy from waves as a substantial resource of renewable energy has attracted much attention in recent years. Linear permanent magnet vernier generators (LPMVGs) have been widely adopted in wave energy applications to extract clean energy from oceans. Linear PM vernier machines perform based on the magnetic gearing effect, allowing them to offer high power/force density at low speeds. The outstanding feature of providing high power capability makes linear vernier generators more advantageous compared to linear PM synchronous counterparts used in wave energy conversion systems. Nevertheless, they inherently suffer from a poor power factor arising from their considerable leakage flux. Various structures and methods have been introduced to enhance their performance and improve their low power factor. In this work, a comparative study of different structures, distinguishable concepts, and operation principles of linear PM vernier machines is presented. Furthermore, recent advancements and innovative improvements have been investigated. They are categorized and evaluated to provide a comprehensive insight into the exploitation of linear vernier generators in wave energy extracting systems. Finally, some significant structures of linear PM vernier generators are modeled using two-dimensional finite element analysis (2D-FEA) to compare their electromagnetic characteristics and survey their performance.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207