MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113896094 · doi:10.1109/mim.2014.6810039

Hydro energy generation and instrumentation & measurement: hydropower plant efficiency testing

2014· article· en· W2113896094 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

VenueIEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)Reliability engineeringHydroelectricityTurbineEngineeringGenerator (circuit theory)HydropowerAutomotive engineeringEfficient energy usePower stationPower (physics)Computer scienceElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydroelectric turbine-generator units are equipped with different types of permanent monitoring sensors mainly for maintenance and safety but not for the efficiency measurement. Acceptance tests such as the efficiency measurement require additional precision instrumentation. Several measurement techniques exist to perform the testing and making the choice depends on the power plant configuration and the instrumentation capability. The best method is the one that is the easiest to implement for the given turbine-generator unit and that gives reliable results. Although performed on site, the accuracy requirements for these tests are very stringent and are key factors for the successful completion of tests and their acceptance from both the manufacturer and the end user. Finally, measuring the efficiency of a hydraulic generating unit is essential for the optimization of its operation, which means more electrical energy and revenue for the same amount of water.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.175 · 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