MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983935052 · doi:10.1109/mias.2012.2186004

Shell of Protection: Arc-Flash PPE Research Update

2012· article· en· W1983935052 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Industry Applications Magazine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringPersonal protective equipmentArc flashForensic engineeringOccupational safety and healthElectrical engineeringLawPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is intended to update the practical research in arc flash while avoiding the specifics of any method. Personal protective equipment (PPE) in the electric arc has been evolving since the early 1990s. With the introduction of safety and health standards of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and arc test methods of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, the growth of PPE knowledge and the proliferation of PPE for electric arc has grown throughout the world. In 1995, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E began addressing arc-flash boundaries, and National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) added the safety requirements for electrical safety. Misunderstandings and errors in marketing still abound, but knowledgeable users, manufacturers, and researchers have helped to make materials more comfortable, protective, and available for many more work situations. OSHA 1910.269 in 1994, NESC in 2007, NFPA 70E in 2000, 2004, and 2009, and now Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z462 have codified the clothing for electric arc. The International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) standards use the open arc method developed in the United States and Canada and kept current in ASTM and the box method developed in Germany to offer an International Standards Organization (ISO) path for arcflash research. Brazil, Peru, Russia, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and, recently, China are codifying laws related to arc-flash PPE, so the international focus is critical. The international method ASTMF1959 is still the ipso facto standard because of its maturity and repeatability. Other methods provide insight to arc phenomena such as plasma and molten metal expulsion. Research continues with the purpose of improving worker protection, but the two characteristics of preventing ignition and melting materials from being used in arc flash and maintaining a shell of protection during the arc are not easily surpassed with other methods.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · 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