MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169101361 · doi:10.1109/mei.2005.1389268

Defect tolerance of solid dielectric transmission class cable

2005· article· en· W2169101361 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

VenueIEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDielectricMaterials scienceConductorRange (aeronautics)Transmission (telecommunications)Dielectric strengthCatastrophic failureElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringComposite materialOptoelectronicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the issue of determining the level of defect that is likely to cause the failure of solid dielectric transmission class cables. It also proposes methods for predicting the level of defect that is likely to cause failure and to provide a simple analytic approximation for doing so in the case of conducting spheroids aligned with the electric field. A common assumption is that conducting particles > 100 μm in length are likely to cause failure of extruded dielectric transmission cable. This analysis suggests that when the effects of operation at elevated temperature are included in the analysis, this is probably an appropriate criterion with a sound technical basis. For maximum background fields in the range of 15 kV/mm, as presently seen near the conductor shield of some transmission class cables, a worst-case particle length in the range of 0.1 mm is likely to be required to cause failure for the worst-case local polymer morphology in the range of the maximum operating temperature.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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