MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143562416 · doi:10.1109/pess.2001.970001

Interfacing optical current sensors in a substation

2001· article· en· W2143562416 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
TopicMagneto-Optical Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsAXYS Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterfacingCurrent transformerComputer scienceTransformerKey (lock)Current sensorElectrical engineeringElectronic engineeringBandwidth (computing)Optical pathEngineeringVoltageTelecommunicationsComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical current sensors are achieving increased acceptance and use in high voltage substations due to their superior accuracy, bandwidth, dynamic range and inherent isolation. Once deemed specialized devices intended for novel applications, optical sensors have risen to a performance level exceeding conventional magnetic devices. Optical current sensors have pushed the limits of measurement beyond what is presently available with conventional technology. In order for users of optical transducers to realize the complete benefits available from this new technology, an understanding of the differences between conventional transformers and optical sensors is critical. Key users who must understand these differences include planners, apparatus engineers, substation designers, maintenance personnel and system operators. Interfacing optical sensors to existing meters and relays is one of these key differences and is the primary focus of this paper. Providing a simple method of interconnecting old and new technology is a necessary and required step in the path to acceptance of optical sensors, and if given this, it will ease the transition to advanced systems within a substation.

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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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