MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1897569707 · doi:10.1109/intlec.1997.645912

Interface specifications for protection and grounding in wireless base stations

2002· article· en· W1897569707 on OpenAlexaff
B. Ashdown, N. Kotbel, T. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundBase stationEnclosureElectrical engineeringRelayWirelessEarthing systemComputer scienceInterface (matter)EngineeringBase transceiver stationComputer networkTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Wireless networkKey distribution in wireless sensor networks

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the deployment of distributed communication systems, particularly wireless base stations, has increased. These systems are typically installed in self-contained metallic enclosures in a great variety of different setups, configurations and sizes, wherever real estate can be found or installation is permitted. Base transceiver stations (BTSs), as they are often called, are equipped with antennae that maybe installed on towers or high-rises. A BTS must also communicate with its controller, typically located in a centralized location through copper communication links and is powered by commercial AC power from the local power grid. These facts make a BTS highly exposed to lightning surges and AC power surges and requires the BTS design to implement a protection scheme that provides sufficient protection within the limited space of the BTS enclosure. Such a protection scheme typically relies on physical layout of the enclosure, cable routing and bonding and also on surge protection devices selected individually for each type of link. Most of the surge energy is dissipated into the local grounding/earthing system which thus becomes a crucial part of the BTS protection scheme.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207