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 OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Konnik, Mark Throckmorton, Gilad Shoshani

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical Fault Detection and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207