Comparative evaluation of parameters of the dielectric breakdown test on transformer oil
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard AC dielectric breakdown test result is generally used as one of the acceptance criteria for insulating oil and a maintenance tool for high-voltage power transformers in service. Using the standard electrode parameters and voltage application procedure, a small-oil-volume breakdown is obtained. Unfortunately however, these test parameters are far from field conditions. Therefore, oil breakdown results were systematically evaluated and compared using ASTM and IEC standard procedures and varying many of the test parameters such as the shape and dimensions of the electrodes, the oil circulation, the voltage application procedure, etc. Both clean and contaminated transformer oils were tested. The results reflect the surface and volume effects, giving lower breakdown voltages when a larger coaxial electrode arrangement replaces the standard shape. A 1-min step-by-step voltage application is also found to give lower breakdown voltages. Finally, the effect of water and solid particle contamination is evaluated and compared for different test methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it