MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764722704 · doi:10.1109/pes.2003.1267180

Incorporating aging failures in power system reliability evaluation

2004· article· en· W2764722704 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyuan Li

Bibliographic record

Venue2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37491) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnavailabilityReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Weibull distributionComputer scienceMean time between failuresElectric power systemPower (physics)EngineeringFailure rateStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. The paper presents a method to incorporate aging failures in power system reliability evaluation. It includes development of a calculation approach with two possible probability distribution models for unavailability of aging failures and implementation in reliability evaluation. The defined unavailability of aging failures has a consistent form as that for repairable failures. This allows aging failures to be easily included in existing reliability evaluation techniques and tools. Differences between the two models using normal and Weibull distributions have been discussed. The BC Hydro north metro system was used as an example to demonstrate an application of the proposed method and models. The results indicate that aging failures have significant impacts on system reliability, particularly for an "aged" system. Ignoring aging failures in reliability evaluation of an aged power system results in an overly underestimation of system risk and most likely a misleading conclusion in system planning.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37491)Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207