MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999526761 · doi:10.1115/jrc2006-94018

DC Traction Power Negative Cable Monitoring System

2006· article· en· W1999526761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Reis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraction substationTraction (geology)Traction power networkAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringElectric power systemEngineeringTrainStray voltagePower (physics)VoltageMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In DC traction power distribution systems, rail bond damages, failures or accidental severing of individual negative feeders are generally undetected by operations as it typically leads to negligible impact on the rolling stock performance. However, a negative return circuit failure increases the overall resistance of the traction power negative return system. This increases the rail-to-earth potential and, consequentially, undesirable DC stray current activity leading to added electrolytic corrosion on affected underground metal structures. Moreover, it may lead to overload on unfaulted negative feeders. Hence, a system that continuously monitors the integrity of the negative distribution feeders is needed so that return circuit failures or inadvertent negative cable severing by construction crews can be promptly detected, located and repaired. This paper describes a negative cable monitoring system that was designed based on a substation PC distributed I/O platform and programmed using LabVIEW. The system samples the negative cable shunt signals via a remote analog input module with filtered differential inputs. The computer individually analyses each negative cable current profile in real time and a supervisory alarm is issued if a negative cable failure is detected. The system was installed at several Toronto Transit Commission streetcar traction power substations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207