MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123045941 · doi:10.1109/icpadm.1997.617562

Electrical diagnostics for station equipment: the need for robust interpretation of monitoring data

2002· article· en· W2123045941 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 institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwitchgearInstrumentation (computer programming)Condition monitoringReliability engineeringElectrical equipmentIdentification (biology)Computer sciencePartial dischargeEngineeringHigh voltageKey (lock)VoltageSystems engineeringElectrical engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to analyze and interpret the data collected by a monitoring system is a key issue in achieving effective condition assessment of station equipment and providing valuable diagnostic information for maintenance programs. The identification of relevant failure mechanisms and selection of optimum diagnostic properties were illustrated for three types of station equipment, medium voltage cables, high voltage cables and gas insulated switchgear. The sensors and monitoring equipment used by OHT for each application were described along with their application under field condition, as either off-line or on-line instrumentation as appropriate. The underlying development programs performed in laboratory simulations for interpreting the monitoring data were presented.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.220 · 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