MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727898288

Electrical equipment certification in Canadian underground coal mines – problem solved?

2016· article· en· W2727898288 on OpenAlex
Ronald F. King, P Cain

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue3rd International Symposium on Mine Safety Science and Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationLegislationAccreditationCoal miningCoalEngineeringBusinessQuality (philosophy)Environmental planningWaste managementEnvironmental scienceLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certification of electrical equipment for underground coal mines in Canada is problematic. EX protected electrical distribution equipment to Group 1 standards is not manufactured in Canada, and even if it were, there is no facility in Canada which is accredited to certify it. The Canadian Federal laboratories previously tasked with the job are closed. Provincial regulations require certification by either a now-defunct facility or by the US authorities (MSHA). Unfortunately the underground coal legislation in the US is significantly at odds with Canadian Provincial legislation and equipment approval requirements which presents problems with equipment certified there. Although the underground coal mining industry in Canada is small, the western Provinces are blessed with substantial resources of high quality steel-making coal, much of which can only be accessed by underground mines. There are perhaps half a dozen large underground projects awaiting a price revival in Alberta and British Columbia, and it was the authors’ experience at one of these projects which lead to this paper. The project in question was owned by a Chinese company which wanted to use Chinese electrical distribution equipment certified in China to IEC equivalent standards. The process of convincing the Provincial regulators that the Chinese equipment was safer than the equipment which would be allowed under Canadian standards was arduous but ultimately successful. The next step was to seek changes in the Canadian electrical standard applicable to mines so that the benefits could be felt across the country.  This has recently also been accomplished. This paper examines the problem through an important aspect of electrical safety in underground coal mines - protection against electric shock and arcing. It compares the requirements of the Canadian legislation, US and UK legislation and IEC standards used by other countries. It concludes that the levels of safety against shock and arcing afforded by IEC-certified multi-point systems can be orders of magnitude better than the single point systems mandated or traditionally used in Canada. Additionally, multi-point systems may be better suited to protect high voltage equipment beginning to be deployed in large open pits than the current Canadian protection standards. The recommendations arising for changes to Canadian standards await ratification, and we are hopeful that they will be adopted by Provincial regulators as soon as practicable.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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