MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unified Sensitivity Analysis of Powers and Distortion Quantities in Non-Sinusoidal Regime

2025· article· W7117489407 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Cristian Andrei, Sorin Deleanu, Dan D. Micu, Marilena Stanculescu, Emil Cazacu, Emil Diaconu, Horia Andrei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal harmonic distortionTHD analyzerDistortion (music)Sensitivity (control systems)HarmonicControl theory (sociology)VoltageHarmonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-sinusoidal operation is very common in modern power networks and affects both equipment and system-level performance. Real situations involve significant changes in the quantities values of electrical networks and determining the limitations imposed by industrial equipment is particularly important. In this case sensitivity analysis can be extremely useful. This paper unifies two complementary approaches-sensitivity-based evaluation of reactive/apparent ($Q / S_{a}$) power and sensitivity-based evaluation of active power (P) and total voltage and current harmonic distortion (THD${ }_{\text {u }}$, and THD${ }_{\text {i }}$) where also included the power factor$\left(\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{P}}\right)$-into a single methodology. For these key quantities of nonsinusoidal regime$\mathbf{P}$,$Q, S_{a}, K_{p}, T H D_{u}$, and THD new relations are introduced with respect to harmonic weightings of voltage ($r_{k}$) and current ($p_{k}$). Thus, the modification of one or several parameters simultaneously$\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{k}}$or/and$\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{k}}$is reflected in the calculated sensitivities. The second order sensitivities are used to analyze the values of key quantities when two set of harmonic weightings are changed. A compact algorithm based on MATLAB is provided and the errors between the values obtained by classical definition and by sensitivity relations are calculated. The obtained results validate the accuracy of proposed method and the harmonic mitigation solutions reflected by the values of THD${ }_{\mathrm{u}}$, and THD${ }_{\mathrm{i}}$is compliant with IEEE Std 519-2022.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 topicPower Quality and HarmonicsFrench-language works237,207