MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326349153 · doi:10.1061/9780784479414.018

Best Practices for Transmission Line Inspections and Recommended Inspection Techniques

2015· article· en· W2326349153 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Stewart, R. L. Nelson, Matthew D. Sinclair, Alex Mogilevsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Inspection Robots
Canadian institutionsCégep de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBest practiceBenchmark (surveying)Asset (computer security)Overhead (engineering)Key (lock)Asset managementLine (geometry)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A successful transmission line asset management program has many components. One of the major components includes collecting data on asset conditions based on sound inspection techniques. The primary purpose of the study reported herein was to develop best practices guidelines against which electric utilities could benchmark their current inspection programs and make appropriate adjustments. The study included three primary tasks: (a) conducting a survey of utilities on an international scale to collect key information to assess the types of patrols being performed on their systems, (b) conducting a literature search to document tools and instruments available on the market to enable various inspection techniques, and (c) analyzing the survey results to develop best practices guidelines. In addition, a database was created that stores information on commercially available tools, techniques, and instruments to perform condition assessments of overhead line components. This topic is of international interest.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207