MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141249468 · doi:10.1109/pesw.2001.916931

Experience with testing and modeling of gas turbines

2002· article· en· W2141249468 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

Venue2001 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37194) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsPowertech Labs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernorGas turbinesElectric power systemGridPower gridGenerator (circuit theory)EngineeringField (mathematics)Permanent magnet synchronous generatorPower (physics)Control engineeringComputer scienceReliability engineeringAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringVoltageMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American western grid experienced two major power disturbances on July 2 and August 10, 1996. The postmortem studies of the incidents indicated that some of the generating units did not respond as predicted by system studies. Consequently, the Western System Coordinating Council (WSCC) mandated that all units (generator, excitation, governor and turbine systems) in the western grid greater than 10 MVA be tested to verify the generator reactive power limits as well as the dynamic model data being used for system studies. This paper presents field experiences of the authors in testing and modeling of gas turbines and their associated governors during the WSCC recommended test program.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.181 · 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