MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553751578 · doi:10.1109/eicemc.2003.1247844

FRP hot stick flashovers during EHV live line work

2004· article· en· W1553751578 on OpenAlexaff
W. McDermid, D.R. Swatek, J.C. Bromley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomena
Canadian institutionsManitoba Hydro
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArc flashConductorWork (physics)EngineeringForensic engineeringInsulator (electricity)Materials scienceElectrical engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997 a FRP hot stick flashed over during live line work at 550 kVac. A rigorous maintenance program was instituted and all FRP hot sticks used in live line work must now withstand an annual dielectric test at 105 kVdc per 305 mm with the surface wet consistent with IEEE Std 978. More frequent electrical tests are made using a hand held tester and limits have been set for the hydrophobicity of the surface. In spite of these measures a second flashover a FRP hot stick occurred during live line work at 550 kVac in 2002. Both flashovers occurred during work from the tower on "v" suspension insulators, the first at a temperature near the freezing point and the second at a temperature well below freezing. In both cases the wind was blowing from the conductor to the worker. Our investigation is trying to establish an adequate explanation for these events as well as corrective measures. The work to date is summarized in this paper. Industry standards for limits of approach are based on the switching surge withstand of air gaps and should not be equated to the minimum safe leakage distance of FRP hot sticks.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomenaFrench-language works237,207