MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141925254 · doi:10.1109/pcicon.2009.5297145

Fire rated cable technology testing methods and installation practices

2009· article· en· W2141925254 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivabilityEngineeringTest (biology)Acceptance testingForensic engineeringFire testFire protectionFire safetyReliability engineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to educate safety, facility and design engineers about fire rated cables used for emergency shut down due to a hydrocarbon fuel fire. The survivability of such cables in comparison to regular cables under fire conditions will be discussed. In addition, an explanation of the various technologies of fire rated cables available today will be provided, as well as issues with previous technology. A new standard, IEEE P1717, "Standard for Testing Circuit Integrity Cables Using a Hydrocarbon Pool Fire Test Protocol", is currently being developed. An overview of the draft test standard will be included as well as other test methods that are used in the US and Canada as well as internationally (such as UL1709, NEK 606 and IEC 61892-4). The installation practices of fire rated cables and what to consider for these cables when designing emergency shutdown systems will be reviewed. This will include information about the material selection for cable trays, support systems, cable glands and fire rated enclosures.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.308 · 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