MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564808782 · doi:10.1002/2016sw001499

Modeling geomagnetically induced currents

2016· article· en· W2564808782 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

VenueSpace Weather · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeomagnetically induced currentEarth's magnetic fieldSpace weatherElectric power systemGeomagnetic stormPhysicsMagnetic fieldGeophysicsComputer sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding the geomagnetic hazard to power systems requires the ability to model the geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) produced in a power network. This paper presents the developments in GIC modeling starting with an examination of fundamental questions about where the driving force for GIC is located. Then we outline the two main network modeling approaches that are mathematically equivalent and show an example for a simple circuit. Accurate modeling of the GIC produced during real space weather events requires including the appropriate system characteristics, magnetic source fields, and Earth conductivity structure. It is shown how multiple voltage levels can be included in GIC modeling and how the network configuration affects the GIC values. Magnetic source fields can be included by using “plane wave” or line current models or by using geomagnetic observatory data with an appropriate interpolation scheme. Earth conductivity structure can be represented by 1‐D, 2‐D, or 3‐D models that are used to calculate the transfer function between electric and magnetic fields at the Earth's surface. For 2‐D and 3‐D structures this will involve a tensor impedance function and electric fields that are not necessarily orthogonal to the magnetic field variations. It is now technically possible to include all these features in the modeling of GIC, and various software implementations are being developed to make these features more accessible for use in risk studies.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0130.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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