MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408920238 · doi:10.18280/jesa.580214

Analytical and Finite Element Methods for Evaluative Electromagnetic Parameters of Inset PMSM and SPMSM

2025· article· fr· W4408920238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phi Do, Hoang Bui Huu, Vương Đặng Quốc, Dinh Bui Minh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodElement (criminal law)PhysicsPolitical scienceThermodynamicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) are widely used in the fields of electric vehicles (EVs) industry due to their remarkable power density, lightweight design, remarkable efficiency, and low torque inertia.Surface-mounted PMSM (SPMSM) and inset PMSM are the two types of PMSMs that can be distinguished by the location of the permanent magnet (PM) in the rotor.This paper presents an association of the analytical model and finite element method (FEM) for evaluative electromagnetic parameters for the SPMSM and inset PMSM.The approach is here performed in two steps: First, an analytical model is presented for both motors to determine initial parameters, including stator dimensions, rotor dimensions, and PM properties.And then, the FEM is proposed to evaluate performance characteristics of the two proposed motors, such as magnetic fields, torque ripple, cogging torque, electromagnetic torque and back electromotive force.The simulation results highlight the performance differences between the two motor types.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207