MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112872853 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2011.2175456

Online Monitoring of Substation Grounding Grid Conditions Using Touch and Step Voltage Sensors

2012· article· en· W2112872853 on OpenAlexaff
Xun Long, Ming Dong, Wilsun Xu, Yunwei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundGridSmart gridEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageScheme (mathematics)WirelessPower gridWireless sensor networkEarthing systemReliability engineeringElectronic engineeringPower (physics)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A grounding grid of a substation is essential for reducing the ground potential rises inside and outside the substation during a short-circuit event. The performance of a grounding grid is affected by a number of factors, such as the soil conductivity and grounding rod corrosion. Industry always has a strong desire for a reliable and cost-effective method to monitor the condition of a grounding grid to ensure personnel safety and prevent equipments damage. In view of the increased adoption of telecom and sensor technologies in power industry through the smart grid initiative, this paper proposes an online condition monitoring scheme for grounding grids. The scheme monitors touch and step voltages in a substation through a sensor network. The voltages are created by a continuously-injected, controllable test current. The results are transmitted to a database through wireless telecommunication. The database evaluates the grid performance continuously by comparing the newly measured results with the historical data. Many of the limitations of the offline measurement techniques are overcome. Computer simulation studies have shown that the proposed scheme is highly feasible and technically attractive.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207