MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163368311 · doi:10.1109/pcicon.2011.6085891

Maximal protection: Lowering incident energy and arc blast elements by minimizing arcing time

2011· article· en· W2163368311 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsRockwell Automation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrippingOvercurrentElectric arcCircuit breakerArc (geometry)Arc-fault circuit interrupterElectrical engineeringComputer scienceCurrent (fluid)EngineeringAutomotive engineeringReliability engineeringShort circuitVoltageMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arcing faults are rare events, but they often lead to severe injuries. From the economic point of view, the consequences due to direct and indirect costs can be extremely high. There are various options to prevent arcing faults, but faults cannot be totally eliminated. This is why several approaches to mitigate the consequences of arcing faults have been introduced. Several manufacturers have started to produce arc flash protection relays based on optical detection of light energy from an arc. In most applications, the light information is confirmed by overcurrent information before a trip command is initiated to an upstream current breaking device. The tripping of a circuit breaker, for instance, occurs in only a few milliseconds. This seems to be the state-of-the-art technology, leading in most cases to very reasonable incident energy levels. However, it is essential to be able to minimize not only the thermal impact but the pressure wave as well. This paper investigates technology aimed at maximal protection.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.172 · 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