MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145487113 · doi:10.1109/tdei.2009.4815187

A cascade of artificial neural networks to predict transformers oil parameters

2009· article· en· W2145487113 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Shaban, Ayman El‐Hag, А. В. Матвеев

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCascadeArtificial neural networkTransformerVoltageTransformer oilBackpropagationComputer scienceBiological systemEngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper artificial neural networks have been constructed to predict different transformers oil parameters. The prediction is performed through modeling the relationship between the insulation resistance measured between distribution transformers high voltage winding, low voltage winding and the ground and the breakdown strength, interfacial tension acidity and the water content of the transformers oil. The process of predicting these oil parameters statuses is carried out using various configurations of neural networks. First, a multilayer feed forward neural network with a back-propagation learning algorithm was implemented. Subsequently, a cascade of these neural networks was deemed to be more promising, and four variations of a three stage cascade were tested. The first configuration takes four inputs and outputs four parameter values, while the other configurations have four neural networks, each with two or three inputs and a single output; the output from some networks are pipelined to some others to produce the final values. Both configurations are evaluated using real-world training and testing data and the accuracy is calculated across a variety of hidden layer and hidden neuron combinations. The results indicate that even with a lack of sufficient data to train the network, accuracy levels of 84% for breakdown voltage, 95% for interfacial tension, 56% for water content, and 75% for oil acidity predictions were obtained by the cascade of neural networks.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical InsulationSame topicPower Transformer Diagnostics and InsulationFrench-language works237,207