MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077056643 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0349

Optimal configuration of underground cables to maximise total ampacity considering current harmonics

2014· article· en· W2077056643 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

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Analysis in Power Transmission
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmpacityHarmonicsCurrent (fluid)Electrical engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceElectrical conductorVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an efficient algorithm to find optimal underground cable configuration with maximum ampacity in a concrete duct bank. The current's harmonics and its effects on the sheath losses are considered in the proposed algorithm. To find the optimal configuration of the cables in the duct bank, two heuristic optimisation methods are applied: the first algorithm is the well‐known particle swarm optimisation (PSO), and the second one is the shuffled frog‐leaping algorithm (SFLA) which has attracted considerable attraction in recent years. The objective function of these methods which has to be optimised is total ampacity. Calculating the total ampacity for a required configuration by using PSO/SFLA is a convex optimisation problem. The interior point method is utilised to solve this problem. The proposed method has been implemented on four test cases to show the importance of considering the current harmonics in determining the optimal configuration. To evaluate the performance of the PSO and the SFLA, the obtained results are compared in different test cases.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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