MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1621668702 · doi:10.1541/ieejpes.133.931

Impacts of Variations of Geomagnetic Storm Disturbances on High Voltage Power Systems

2013· article· en· W1621668702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William A. Radasky

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEJ Transactions on Power and Energy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutGeomagnetic stormEarth's magnetic fieldGeomagnetically induced currentStormCoronal mass ejectionEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyLatitudeAtmospheric sciencesElectric power systemGeophysicsPower (physics)GeologyPhysicsGeodesySolar windMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 20 years there have been several studies examining the impacts of geomagnetic storms on high voltage power systems on the Earth's surface. These were strongly motivated by the blackout of the power grid in Quebec, Canada in March 1989 due to a severe geomagnetic storm created by a coronal mass ejection on the sun several days earlier. This paper evaluates examples of three major types of geomagnetic disturbances that typically occur (auroral electrojets, sudden storm commencements, and high speed streams due to coronal holes on the Sun). In each case the nature of the geomagnetic time variation is discussed along with its typical conversion to electric fields in the Earth. This allows a determination of the potential impact on a power grid. It is important to understand the relative importance of these different types of disturbances, as they have different latitudes of exposure, which are important for the locations of different power grids throughout the world.

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)0.003
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEJ Transactions on Power and EnergySame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207