MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218639741 · doi:10.1109/ias.2015.7356923

Effects on the results of the fall of potential test when using sky wires for the remote current probe

2015· article· en· W2218639741 on OpenAlex
Eduardo H. Enrique

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
TopicIslanding Detection in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyFootprintCurrent (fluid)Remote sensingTest (biology)Electrical engineeringElectric power transmissionGroundComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMeteorologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As specified in the electrical codes, a solar farm grounding system must be measured to determine if its resistance is equal to or lower than the resistance predicted by the design. The methods of choice for this measurement are the fall of potential test and the slope test. As described in IEEE 81-2012, in order for these two methods to give meaningful results, the remote current probe must be located at a distance of at least five times the largest dimension of the solar farm footprint. To comply with this requirement, some contractors have recently introduced the use sky wires of nearby sub transmission lines to inject the test current at a remote location. This paper presents the analysis of the errors introduced by the use of sky wires in the fall of potential test.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIslanding Detection in Power SystemsFrench-language works237,207