MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164940782 · doi:10.1109/tdc.1991.169583

Reliability and quality comparisons of electric power distribution systems

2002· article· en· W2164940782 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

VenueProceedings of the 1991 IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission and Distribution Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsTECO-Westinghouse (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringQuality (philosophy)Power (physics)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Reliability theoryPower qualityDuration (music)EngineeringFailure rateMathematicsElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and operating parameters of seven common distribution systems are examined to compare their performances in terms of reliability and power quality. Field experience is matched with theoretical calculations for frequency and average duration of outages in order to predict relative reliability levels that can be expected from each type of system. The systems are then ranked by reliability and their ability to supply what has come to be known as clean power. The result provides a basis of comparison for the distribution engineer when choosing the system design suitable for the particular type of load to be served.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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