Considerations of relevant factors in setting distribution system reliability standards
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of distribution reliability standard metric values, e.g., system average interruption frequency index (SAIFI), system average interruption duration index (SAIDI), customer average interruption duration index (CAIDI), etc., against which all utilities can compare themselves is impossible. There are too many differences between data collection processes and utility systems characteristics to make development of universally applicable standard metric values and comparisons against such standard metric values valid. Rather, the development of uniform standard metric values, which utilities compare themselves to their own historical performance is more practical. If cross comparisons between utilities are desirable, a number of issues and factors associated with individual utilities must be taken into considerations in establishing distribution reliability standards. The paper identifies a number of such important and pertinent factors and issues in setting distribution reliability standards, and illustrates the issues and factors using historical reliability performance data from a number of Canadian utilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it