MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146094783 · doi:10.1109/mper.2001.4311577

Influence of Inductive Coupling between Leads on Ground Impedance Measurements Using the Fall-of-Potential Method

2001· article· en· W2146094783 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

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupling (piping)Electrical impedanceInductive couplingGroundCurrent (fluid)Separation (statistics)AcousticsMaterials scienceComputational physicsElectrical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground impedance measurements in various soil structures using the fall-of-potential method are modeled, taking into account the inductive coupling between current and potential leads. The variation of the inductive coupling with the separation distance between the current and potential leads, operating frequency, and grounding grid size is analyzed for uniform and multilayer soils. Numerical results are presented and compared. The analysis quantifies the inductive coupling between current and potential leads for typical separation distances between the leads. Coupling levels presented in this paper can be used as a reference to estimate possible errors in ground impedance measurements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.268 · 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