Non-Coherence in Transmission Line Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-coherence in system reliability refers to the fact that absence of a component from the system creates a more reliable system state or provides a higher system reliability level. This phenomenon may exist in transmission systems. Unfortunately, it has not been sufficiently recognized in the power industry. This paper explains the basic concept of non-coherence in transmission systems and provides a case study where the single transmission line structure with loop-in connection for supplying loads from two ends is superior to the double transmission line structure with tap-connection for supplying the same loads not only in an economic sense but also in accordance with the reliability level. This is contrary to intuition since transmission planning engineers normally make an opposite judgment. The example given in the paper is an actual application in a utility of Canada. It also has a wider significance because the double- line arrangement with tap-connection is a popular choice in transmission planning practice of utilities across the world. It is important and beneficial for utilities to recognize and identify the non-coherence feature that could exist in their transmission systems using quantified reliability evaluation. This can help improve system reliability while avoiding unnecessary capital investments in the system planning process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".