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 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 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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 head0.096
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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207