MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118336597 · doi:10.1109/ichqp.2008.4668781

Distribution system grounding impacts on fault responses

2008· article· en· W2118336597 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
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundFault (geology)Earthing systemVoltageElectric power systemSensitivity (control systems)EngineeringPower (physics)Current (fluid)Electrical engineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceElectronic engineeringPhysicsGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main concerns of utilities, nowadays, is grounding the distribution systems. Distribution systems are usually three phase systems with a returning current neutral wire. Grounding the neutral wire will affect the power quality and characteristics of distribution systems during unbalanced conditions, specially phase to ground faults. In this paper several case studies have been done to investigate the impacts of different types of grounding the distribution systems on fault responses. The fault responses are fault current, voltage swell, substation ground potential rise and neutral wire voltages and currents. Some sensitivity studies are also performed to see the effects of grounding parameters on fault responses. The results are presented in graphical and tabular forms.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207