MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584734188

Simultaneous Measurements of Return Stroke Current, Electric and Magnetic Fields at Three Distance Ranges Associated with Lightning Strikes to The CN Tower

2006· article· en· W1584734188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Pavanello, Farhad Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, Marcos Rubinstein, A.M. Hussein, E. Petrache, V. Shostak, Carlo Alberto Nucci, J.S. Chang, I. Boew, William A. Chisholm, M. Nyffeler

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)TowerElectrical engineeringCurrent (fluid)Lightning strikeMagnetic fieldPhysicsEngineeringGroundStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, simultaneous GPS time-stamped \nmeasurements of the electric and magnetic fields at three \ndistances and of the return stroke current associated with \nlightning strikes to the Toronto CN Tower during the \nSummer of 2005 are reported. The lightning return-stroke \ncurrent was measured using a Rogowski coil installed at a \nheight of 474 m AGL (above ground level). The vertical \ncomponent of the electric field and the azimuthal component \nof the magnetic field were measured simultaneously at \ndistances of 2.0 km (Pratt building of the University of \nToronto), 16.8 km (Environment Canada Building), and 50.9 \nkm (Grimsby, ON) from the CN Tower. Preliminary \ndiscussion on the current-field relation and propagation \neffects is also provided.

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)0.000
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna)Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207