MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094873823 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd:20050261

Reliability assessment of an automated distribution system

2007· article· en· W2094873823 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringScheme (mathematics)Computer scienceFault (geology)Service (business)Process automation systemReal-time computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automation can greatly enhance distribution-network reliability by speeding up service restoration and thus significantly reduce customer-outage time. The paper presents an approach to assess quantitatively the adequacy of a particular automated distribution scheme designated as the ‘low interruption system’ (LIS). Owing to the use of a high-speed communication system and line sensors, this automated scheme can reduce drastically the number of interruptions, the service interruption time and also the area affected by the fault. This scheme provides a simple and cost-effective way to automate distribution systems in which the remotely controlled switches speed up isolation of faulted sections and the restoration of healthy sections through alternative routes. The step-by-step calculation procedure is presented using a typical small automated distribution system. The proposed technique is then applied to a larger distribution system to examine the effectiveness of the technique and also to examine the level of reliability improvement achieved by automation.

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)0.002
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 score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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