MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003116254 · doi:10.1139/l10-006

Experimental evaluation of remaining strength of crossarms in Gulfport transmission line wood structures

2010· article· en· W2003116254 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mahesh D. Pandey, Van Ho, Francis X. McCarthy, Simon Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsElectric power transmissionEnvironmental scienceElectricityService lifeReliability engineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical transmission lines in Canada and elsewhere widely utilize wood structures to support electrical conductors. The Gulfport structure is one of the largest wooden structures used in Canada’s electricity transmission networks. Continuous exposure of crossarms to wide-ranging temperature, moisture, and load conditions makes them vulnerable to internal decay and failure under adverse weather conditions, such as windstorms and snowstorms. These failures can result in forced outages and customer disruptions with significant economic losses, and therefore the electrical utility industry has taken a keen interest in developing condition-assessment methods to support cost-effective replacement of aged wood crossarms. At present, there is no dataset available regarding the remaining strength of wood pole crossarms exposed to the aboveground environment for 30–40 years of service life in Canada. This paper presents a comprehensive experimental study focussed on evaluating the remaining strength distribution in a sample of crossarms removed from service. The experimental data presented in the paper are essential to assess remaining life and develop guidelines for condition assessment of crossarms.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207