MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157310455 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2002.1015176

A comparison of North American Generating Unit Outage parameters and unavailability indices

2003· article· en· W2157310455 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Electricity Association
KeywordsDeratingUnavailabilityReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringUnit (ring theory)State (computer science)Computer scienceElectricityEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsPower (physics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a detailed comparison between two generating unit outage data reporting systems. These are the generating availability data system (GADS) maintained by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the Equipment Reliability Information System (ERIS) created by the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA). The definitions of the generating unit states and residence times in the two systems are presented and compared multi-state models which extend the conventional two state model are included and compared for peaking units. Equivalent derating concepts are also utilized to represent derated state conditions. The CEA ERIS peaking unit database is utilized to calculate the relevant indices.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207