MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547459795 · doi:10.5006/c2005-05623

Increasing the Cost-Effectiveness of AC Interference Mitigation Designs with Integrated Electromagnetic Field Modeling

2005· article· en· W1547459795 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Southey, F. Dawalibi, Y. Li, W. Ruan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic interferenceInterference (communication)Electromagnetic fieldField (mathematics)Electronic engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The electricity transmission, gas transmission, and railway industries have developed various methods for the calculation of voltages induced in infrastructure following power line corridors. These tools are typically based on simplified topologies and assumptions that make the implementation of the required algorithms more tractable and data entry screens more alluring. On the other hand, such an approach suffers from reduced accuracy, due to the required simplifying assumptions, and furthermore excludes the possibility of studying complex systems for which the designer is unable to determine what simplifying approximations are the most appropriate. In the absence of confidence in his or her calculations, the designer tends to be overly conservative, resulting in excessive mitigation. This situation arises in particular when the system includes buried components whose through-earth coupling interactions are significant. This paper illustrates this point with a case study and parametric analysis, showing how a calculation based on integrated electromagnetic field modeling results in a more accurate assessment of interference levels and therefore more suitable mitigation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207