MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155077058 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2003.822979

Intermittent Arcing Fault on Underground Low-Voltage Cables

2004· article· en· W2155077058 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsFuse (electrical)Electric arcFault (geology)Explosive materialElectrical engineeringVoltageCircuit breakerEngineeringForensic engineeringGeologyPhysicsSeismologyElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arcing faults on 600/347-V underground cables can cause considerable damage, even explosions, despite the installed protection system. In fact, the protection sometimes appears to be quite slow to operate considering the prospective short circuit. Laboratory tests provided an opportunity to better characterize these arcing faults and prove that they can be intermittent. They can be quite random in nature, usually comprising periods of conduction lasting one half-cycle separated by periods of nonconduction lasting from a few cycles to several minutes. This type of fault can easily make fuse-type protection ineffective, as other tests proved. The fuse operating time can become even longer, to the extent that explosive gases will form.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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