MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114395157 · doi:10.1109/appeec.2011.5747748

Safety Analysis of Fence Installation on a Large Power Station Concerning Inductive and Conductive Coupling from Nearby Transmission Lines

2011· article· en· W2114395157 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFence (mathematics)InstallationElectric power transmissionGroundElectrical conductorEngineeringPower transmissionFault (geology)Electrical engineeringPower (physics)Structural engineeringMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a safety analysis during the installation of a fence surrounding a large power station under construction. The safety concerns are due to both inductive and conductive coupling from nearby existing transmission lines during steady state and fault conditions. The fence must be installed during the station construction phase and before the installation of its grounding system. Different scenarios are analyzed to ensure the safety during and after the installation of the fence. Based on the analysis, procedures for installing the fence to ensure safety at all times are developed. The analysis and the procedures presented in this paper can be used as a guide when carrying out safety analysis of fence installation under similar circumstances.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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