MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145117535 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2007.911164

Accuracy of Transmission Line Modeling Based on Aerial LiDAR Survey

2008· article· en· W2145117535 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Lu, Zibby Kieloch

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Analysis in Power Transmission
Canadian institutionsManitoba Hydro
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarConductorElectric power transmissionRemote sensingElectrical conductorTransmission lineEnvironmental scienceParametric statisticsWind speedRangingTemperature measurementMeteorologyEngineeringMaterials scienceElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerial LiDAR survey is receiving wide application in transmission-line modeling due to its efficiency. The technique is particularly useful for modeling of existing lines for the purpose of thermal rating, upgrading, or vegetation management. An accurate modeling of an existing line depends largely on proper determination of the base conductor temperature, i.e. the conductor temperature at the time of the aerial light detection and ranging (LiDAR) survey. In this paper, an acceptable accuracy for the base conductor temperature is first established. Extensive parametric studies are then conducted to reveal the effects of all the potentially major factors: ambient air temperature, electrical load, solar radiation, wind, and conductor size on the base conductor temperature. As a result, recommendations are made on the proper practice of performing an aerial LiDAR survey and determining the base conductor temperature so that the resulting transmission line modeling is within an acceptable accuracy. It is demonstrated that a wide error can easily be introduced without following a proper procedure for the LiDAR survey.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicThermal Analysis in Power TransmissionFrench-language works237,207