Sensitivity analysis of a parallel‐plate method for measuring the dielectric permittivity of high‐voltage insulating materials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascertaining the dielectric character of polymeric insulation materials is of particular interest for comparative studies that use accelerated ageing and samples from decommissioned installations. In the case of polymeric samples, the possibility of physical deformation within the sample holder adds additional variability to comparative measurements. Using readily obtainable instrumentation, this study undertakes a systematic sensitivity analysis of a parallel‐plate capacitance measurement approach for polymeric materials that only has one capacitance plate in contact with the sample, avoiding issues of sample deformation. The analysis demonstrates that the biggest contributor of uncertainty in the measurement of the relative permittivity and loss tangent is the precision with which the plate–plate and plate–sample separation is determined. The measurements show that the determination of loss tangent can be susceptible to uncertainties arising from electrical noise, but that these can be controlled further by utilising more refined instrumentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it