MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Remote Terminal Units for Distribution Automation: Development and Commissioning Experience

2008· article· en· W2020285857 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computers and Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIslanding Detection in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaIndian Institute of Technology Kanpur
KeywordsAutomationComputer scienceProject commissioningRemote controlProtocol (science)Terminal (telecommunication)Remote monitoring and controlProcess automation systemTelecommunicationsEmbedded systemControl (management)Operating systemEngineeringPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes indigenous design, development, and commissioning of Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) for computer-aided monitoring and control of 10 MVA power distribution network of Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur in India. RTUs play a significant role in data monitoring and control of the power distribution network from a remote location. Remote monitoring and control of the distribution system is also called Distribution Automation (DA). The developed and commissioned RTUs are based on an architecture that eliminates the requirement of DC transducer stage. This significantly reduces the cost and size of the RTU and the effort required during installation and commissioning of the RTU. The developed RTUs support the industry standard open protocol “Distributed Network Protocol (DNP3.0)” for data communication.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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