MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122351165 · doi:10.1109/tia.2010.2057497

DC-Arc Models and Incident-Energy Calculations

2010· article· en· W2122351165 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBruce Power
KeywordsArc (geometry)Electric arcElectrical engineeringArc-fault circuit interrupterElectric power systemPower (physics)Nonlinear systemComputer scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsVoltageElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many industrial applications of large-scale dc power systems, but only a limited amount of scientific literature addresses the modeling of dc arcs. Since the early dc-arc research focused on the arc as an illuminant, most of the early data was obtained from low-current dc systems. More recent publications provide a better understanding of the high-current dc arc. The dc-arc models reviewed in this paper cover a wide range of arcing situations and test conditions. Even with the test variations, a comparison of dc-arc resistance equations shows a fair degree of consistency in the formulations. A method for estimating incident energy for a dc arcing fault is developed based on a nonlinear arc resistance. Additional dc-arc testing is needed so that more accurate incident-energy models can be developed for dc arcs.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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