MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597150170 · doi:10.1080/15732479.2017.1299771

A probabilistic framework based on statistical learning theory for structural reliability analysis of transmission line systems

2017· article· en· W2597150170 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructure and Infrastructure Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProbabilistic logicMonte Carlo methodReliability (semiconductor)Structural systemReliability engineeringComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Transmission lineSolverEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a novel application of statistical learning theory to structural reliability analysis of transmission lines considering the uncertainties of climatic variables such as, wind speed, ice thickness and wind angle, and of the resistance of structural elements. The problem of reliability analysis of complex structural systems with implicit limit state functions is addressed by statistical model selection, where the goal is to select a surrogate model of the finite element solver that provides the value of the performance function for each conductor, insulator or tower element. After determining the performance function for each structural element, Monte Carlo simulation is used to calculate their failure probabilities. The failure probabilities of towers and the entire line are then estimated from the failure probabilities of their elements/components considering the correlation between failure events. In order to quantify the relative importance of line components and provide the engineers with a practical decision tool, the paper presents the calculation of two types of component importance measures. The presented methodology can be used to achieve optimised design, and to assess upgrading strategies to increase the line capacity.

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)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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