MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081098056 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2244077

2.5 Beta Methodology—Impact of “Zero SAIDI” Days

2013· article· en· W2081098056 on OpenAlex
Norm Hann, Bo Ji, Anna Qureshi

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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Zero (linguistics)StatisticsReliability engineeringMathematicsEvent (particle physics)EconometricsComputer sciencePower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IEEE Standard 1366-2003-2.5 Beta Methodology was developed to provide a methodology to define a Major Event Day (MED) with respect to distribution reliability performance. The method applies to utilities experiencing interruptions every day or just some days of the year. According to the methodology, days without interruptions are eliminated from the threshold calculation. This letter endeavors to illustrate that actual data variations in the number of “Zero SAIDI” days has a significant impact on the threshold for data sets of 24 utility units and may also apply to other utilities. The issue that arises is that there is a large variation in the thresholds and number of MEDs, depending on the number of “non-zero” days a utility may encounter from year to year as a result of slightly deteriorating daily performance. This condition can cause significant shifts of the MED thresholds and the resulting number of defined MEDs.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · 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