Do not mix the requirements of hazardous location areas when you order motors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the processes and types of gases are the same in refineries around globe; the design and installation of the electrical equipment will vary in order to comply with the selected installation requirements. There are essentially two major systems of installation requirements for hazardous areas commonly found in the oil and gas industry. The first is the North American system with hazardous area installations in accordance with either the National Electric Code®(NEC®)ANSI/NFPA70 [1] for the USA; or the Canadian Electric Code (CEC) CSA C22.1 [2] for Canada. The second is based on European or International codes and standards for the installations of concern. In Europe, the hazardous area installations are in accordance with HD 60364 and EN 60079-14[8]; and in many other parts of the world are in accordance with HD 60364 and IEC 60079 14[[8]. The European standards are essentially identical to the I EC standards. It is very confusing when one mixes the requirements or definition of hazardous areas since the systems vary to a degree in terms of design, third party certification requirements, marking etc. The authors will compare the "systems" and provide key differences between them to avoid confusion when selecting one versus other for the installation of electrical motors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.230 | 0.223 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".