MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990363972 · doi:10.1109/eic.2014.6869425

Qualification test results on multi-turn coils of large hydrogenerators

2014· article· en· W1990363972 on OpenAlexaff
Inna Kremza, Stefano Bomben, Ashfak Shaikh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomena
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)Manitoba Hydro
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilEngineeringPartial dischargeVoltageElectrical engineeringDissipationMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringThermalAutomotive engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-turn coil windings are widely applied in large hydrogenerators up to 150 MVA power output and voltages as high as 18 kV. A well manufactured, properly installed and maintained winding is subject to slow degradation processes resulting from electrical, thermal, mechanical and chemical stresses which are acting at various rates and locations on the entire winding. Several IEEE test standards are in place to determine the effectiveness of the insulation system of multi-turn coils to withstand these stressors and assess the quality of the insulation in the winding. This paper outlines the evaluation process for the groundwall or main insulation for 13.8 kV multi-turn coils for a hydrogenerator. The program covers diagnostic results consisting of dissipation factor, dissipation factor tip-up, partial discharge derived from thermal cycling and voltage endurance tests. The diagnostic results along with the dissection of the tested multi-turn coils are used to determine the degree and rate of degradation of insulation properties due to thermal and electrical aging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomenaFrench-language works237,207