MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327122812 · doi:10.1061/41077(363)41

Electrical and Mechanical Considerations in 765kV (Insulator) Hardware Assembly Design

2009· article· en· W2327122812 on OpenAlexaff
J. Kuffel, Ziqin Li, Bruce Freimark, T. S. Chandrasekar Rao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Analysis in Power Transmission
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundleElectrical conductorConductorInsulator (electricity)Electric power transmissionElectrical engineeringNoise (video)Transmission lineElectrical wiringEngineeringMechanical engineeringElectronic engineeringComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting in 1969, American Electric Power (AEP) built a 765kV transmission network that amounted to over 2,000 circuit miles by 1984. The system utilized four—conductor bundles of Rail and Dipper conductors. Operational experience with the network revealed issues around audible noise due to corona from the lines. In 1990, when the need arose to expand the network, it was decided that audible noise issues would be addressed by utilizing a new bundle design that consisted of a 6-conductor bundle using Tern conductors. The intent of the design change was to eliminate corona and thus resolve the audible noise issues associated with previous designs. The new design would also allow the use of non-ceramic insulators, which are susceptible to damage from long term exposure to corona. The move to the 6 x Tern phase bundle posed significant mechanical and electrical challenges to the engineers involved in hardware development. This paper describes the extensive electrical testing programs carried out to prove the performance of the new 6-conductor bundle design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermal Analysis in Power TransmissionFrench-language works237,207