MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168209555 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1556938

Locating water ingress in telephone cables using frequency domain reflectometry

2006· article· en· W2168209555 on OpenAlexafffund
D.E. Dodds, B. Celaya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReflectometryReflection (computer programming)Phase angle (astronomy)Electrical impedanceReflection coefficientLine (geometry)Electrical engineeringTransmission lineElectronic circuitPhase (matter)Frequency domainOpticsClassification of discontinuitiesMaterials scienceAcousticsEngineeringTime domainPhysicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to locate water ingress in telephone cables because water severely attenuates DSL signals used for Internet access. The paper initially reviews the frequency domain reflectometry method and how it measures the distance, magnitude and phase angle of reflections caused by transmission line discontinuities. When water enters a cable it lowers the magnitude and angle of the characteristic line impedance, causing reflections at the points where the water starts and ends. The dry and wet characteristic impedances of a 300-meter section of telephone line were experimentally measured and the reflection coefficient was estimated to have a phase angle of 20deg. Measurements of a properly terminated telephone line with 300 meters of the line immersed in water showed a first reflection with a phase angle of 162deg (180deg-18deg). A second reflection, from the end of the wet section, was measured with a phase angle of 25deg. These reflection angles differ from the 0deg or 180deg typical of bridge taps, open circuits or short circuits and this allows a technician to specifically identify water ingress

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 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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207