MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154812335 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2004.829162

The Performance Specification of Transmission Line Protection Using a Knowledge-Based Approach

2004· article· en· W2154812335 on OpenAlexaff
Khalil El‐Arroudi, G. Joós, D. McGillis, Reginald Brearley

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringRelayRedundancy (engineering)Protective relayElectric power systemConsistency (knowledge bases)AutomationPower-system protectionCover (algebra)Computer scienceDesign engineerEngineeringElectric power transmissionSystems engineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an automated approach to transmission line protection design for implementation in the form of a performance specification. The need for automation is the result of the increased complexity of interconnected power systems and despite numerous proprietary computer programs, the analysis of power system behavior requires significant engineering time and effort. Many scenarios have to be investigated before selecting and setting a protective relay and its equipment. By automating the running of the various computer programs and analyzing the results in a specific manner, the design scenarios can be investigated relatively quickly, cover all possible cases, remove protection design redundancy, preserve protection design methods, and assure consistency in protection system design. Additionally, by changing the system loading to some future anticipated value, it can be determined if specified relays and their equipment can be adjusted or will have to be replaced. It is also clear that such a design tool is useful in training system protection design engineers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207