MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197852366 · doi:10.1109/ias.1996.563887

Interpreting recent power quality surveys to define the electrical environment

2002· article· en· W2197852366 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
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsPowertech Labs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringLine (geometry)Power (physics)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceVoltagePower qualityElectrical engineeringElectrical equipmentAutomotive engineeringElectric power systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent AC power line monitoring projects have enabled a better understanding of the typical electrical environment within which sensitive electronic equipment must be able to operate. Voltage variations caused by utility protective and regulation devices as well as variations caused by load equipment contribute to the total power quality picture. Regardless of the origin of these variations, the load equipment must be able to operate with some degree of immunity. This paper presents a combined assessment of data from three of the most recent power quality surveys. Results of this assessment suggest that load equipment with reasonable voltage regulation and interruption ride through will withstand the majority of recorded power line variations. A detailed analysis of monitor capabilities and limitations is presented along with a discussion of the interpretation of power line variations recorded at different monitoring locations.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations69
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Quality and HarmonicsFrench-language works237,207