Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an approach to classifying power system faults using rough set methods. A knowledge-based fault detection and identification (FDI) system for power system faults has been introduced. The FDI system has the ability to detect and classify power system faults by combining conventional signal analysis methods (e.g., FFT, IFFT and wavelets) with granular computing and rough set methods. In granular computing, experimental data is partitioned into collections of data (called information granules) that are in some way similar. Rough set methods are based on set approximation, partition of each finite universe using an indiscernibility relation, attribute reduction, decision-rule derivation, and many useful measures such as approximation accuracy and rough inclusion. Traditional fuzzy set theory is also as part of fault signal feature extraction. The FDI system derives an indication of the type of faults that have occurred and also generates classification rules for the fault classification. This system has resulted from a study of fault files recorded by the Transcan Recording System (TRS) at the Manitoba Hydro Dorsey Station over several years. The contribution of this paper is the introduction of an approach to classifying power system faults using a combination of traditional signal analysis methods and a number of computational intelligence methods (granular computing, and rough set theory).
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".