MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115713297 · doi:10.1109/tia.2005.855049

Impact of Manual Versus Automatic Transfer Switching on the Reliability Levels of an Industrial Plant

2005· article· en· W2115713297 on OpenAlexaff
Imtiaj Khan, Jiehui Zheng, D.O. Koval, Venkata Dinavahi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircuit breakerReliability (semiconductor)Duration (music)Reliability engineeringEngineeringTransfer (computing)Maximum power transfer theoremPower (physics)Electric power systemPoint (geometry)State (computer science)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed reliability modeling and analysis of industrial plants provides an estimate of the frequency and duration of load point interruptions. The duration of repair and switching activities necessary to restore a unique power system configuration to a normal operating state from an outage state has a significant impact on the power system reliability levels of industrial power systems. This paper presents and discusses the significant variations in the frequency and duration of load point interruptions at an industrial plant due to manual and automatic switching activities. Three case studies with different percentages of open- and short-circuit failure modes of circuit breakers and fuses will also be presented and discussed for both manual and automatic switching restoration activities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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