MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524693415 · doi:10.1109/rams.2015.7105167

Maintenance resource planning for utility poles in a power distribution network

2015· article· en· W1524693415 on OpenAlexaff
Maliheh Aramon Bajestani, Neil Montgomery, Dragan Banjević, Andrew Jardine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionReliability engineeringInterval (graph theory)Preventive maintenanceResource (disambiguation)Distribution (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address the problem of maintenance resource planning for utility wood poles for a power distribution company. The poles are currently replaced with new ones either when they fail or are found in poor condition at regular inspections. As the poles age, a large number of failures might occur, yielding an unexpected increase in the demand for maintenance resources. Timely preventive replacement of poles is one strategy to prevent such an increase in maintenance demand. Therefore, changing the maintenance program such that poles whose ages exceed a threshold value are also replaced at regular inspections can reduce the number of failures in the future and consequently the unplanned demand for maintenance resources. However, determining the threshold age is challenging. To solve the problem, we assume that the failure time of poles follows a Weibull distribution and estimate its parameters by the maximum likelihood method from the available left truncated and right censored data. To justify the necessity of preventive replacement, we then use the delayed renewal process theorem to calculate the expected number of failures in any given interval in the future assuming poles are replaced only at failure. Finally, we propose a mathematical programming model to determine the threshold age ensuring that the expected number of failures in a given future interval is limited. The methodology developed in this paper can be used by any utility to limit the number of unplanned replacements.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207