Pole mounted distribution transformers insulation condition assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydro-Québec (HQ) Distribution grid has close to 600,000 overhead distribution transformers in service. On average, every year 10,000 units are taken out of service for various reasons such as failures, replacement due to load rise and network reconfiguration. In 2006/07, HQ Distribution started a refurbishment program to give them a second life on the distribution grid. It is neither acceptable nor efficient to proceed with the refurbishment of a transformer having a degraded solid insulation and consequently an expected low residual life. In 2010, a project was started to assess the condition of the insulation of different service-aged transformers. 121 distributions transformers were randomly sampled from the units sent for refurbishment. Samples were taken from the following manufacturing year ranges: before 1985, 1985-1989, 19901994, 1995-1999, 2000-2004 and 20052010. In this evaluation, oil samples were taken from each transformer to assess oil quality and transformer condition. Paper sampled from the coils, were also taken in specific cases amongst the faulty transformers. The preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from this study are that transformers manufactured after 1985 do not seem to experience any major aging with respect to their insulation. It therefore appears that if no faults are present, the transformers should be refurbished since the insulation basically in a good condition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".