MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155517779 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1999.804922

Evaluating delivery point reliability performance for network configurations

2003· article· en· W2155517779 on OpenAlexaff
Fenlang Dong, D.O. Koval

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Failure rateBayes' theoremElectric networkMeasure (data warehouse)Component (thermodynamics)Network elementPower (physics)EngineeringComputer networkData miningVoltageElectrical engineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability of an electric or telecommunication network configuration is a measure of its ability to continuously meet the demands of all its points of delivery. Customers who have processes that are highly susceptible to sustained and momentary interruptions in their supply network configuration are significantly affected in their ability to produce end products and maintain processes. This paper presents a reliability method based on Bayes theorem to evaluate the reliability at individual delivery points within a given electric utility network configuration. The reliability characteristics of the components of the network are defined by their respective failure rate and repair/replacement rates. The primary advantage of Bayes theorem over other methodologies is the retention of the network configuration and the ability to impose various operating constraints during the recovery of the network from component outages. This paper clearly reveals that the reliability levels at individual points of delivery can vary significantly depending upon the reliability of the power supplies serving a given network configuration.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207