MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104475181 · doi:10.1109/tia.2009.2036504

Assessment of Transmission-Line Common-Mode, Station-Originated, and Fault-Type Forced-Outage Rates

2009· article· en· W2104475181 on OpenAlexaff
D.O. Koval, Ali A. Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric power transmissionReliability (semiconductor)Transmission lineReliability engineeringFault (geology)Transmission (telecommunications)Line (geometry)Power transmissionPower (physics)EngineeringMode (computer interface)Computer scienceElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency and duration of the various types of transmission-line outages have a significant impact on the operation and reliability of industrial and commercial power systems. Knowledge of the statistical characteristics of transmission-line outages (e.g., types of faults: three phase, line-to-ground, etc.) directly affects the protection and coordination practices at these facilities. Reliability modeling of industrial and commercial power systems is dependent upon transmission-line outage characteristics (e.g., terminal- and line-related sustained outages). Generalizations of transmission-line characteristics for all voltage classes can be incorrect and extremely problematic in many cases. This paper presents the sum of the results of a ten-year study of the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool transmission-line outage-data statistics for 230-, 345-, and 500-kV lines. These data can be used for modeling the reliability of industrial and commercial facilities being serviced by transmission lines and reveal some of the common beliefs and misconceptions about transmission-line characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207