MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119839147 · doi:10.1109/19.918156

NRC-PTB intercomparison of voltage transformer calibration systems for high voltage at 60 Hz, 50 Hz, and 16.66 Hz

2001· article· en· W2119839147 on OpenAlexaff
E. So, Hans-Georg Latzel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Electrical Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltageCalibrationElectrical engineeringVoltage dividerResistive touchscreenPhysicsTransformerComparatorAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intercomparison of voltage transformer (VT) calibration systems was performed at the PTB high-voltage laboratory. A "portable" current-comparator-based VT calibration system of the NRC was compared with the PTB voltage-divider-based system, using a reference multiratio inductive VT as a transfer standard with voltage ratios of (110/2 kV)/(100/2 V) up to (400//spl radic/3 kV)/(100//spl radic/3 V) at frequencies of 16.66 Hz, 50 Hz, and 60 Hz. At frequencies of 50 Hz and 60 Hz with a resistive burden of 10 k/spl Omega/ and test voltages of 20% up to 120% of rated voltage, the test results of the two different methods at all ratios were found to differ by no more than 15 parts in 10/sup 6/ for the voltage ratio and 30 /spl mu/rad for the phase displacement. For the ratio (110/2 kV)/(100/2 V) at 16.66 Hz, the results agreed within 15 parts in 10/sup 6/ for the voltage ratio and 50 /spl mu/rad for the phase displacement.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAdvanced Electrical Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207