MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886017228 · doi:10.1109/tcpmt.2018.2864595

Performance and Diagnosis of Aluminum Connectors Tested Inside MV Cable Splices

2018· article· en· W2886017228 on OpenAlexaff
C. Dang, Jacques Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Contact Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCable glandCable harnessShielded cableOverheating (electricity)EngineeringOverhead (engineering)Electrical conductorElectrical engineeringReliability engineeringStructural engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance of power cable connectors is usually evaluated under bare conditions as for overhead applications, such as specified in the test standards ANSI C119.4 and IEC 61238-1. Significant differences exist between the requirements of these two standards, in particular, the short-circuit current test that only becomes optional in the recent ANSI 2011 edition. Furthermore, past and recent experience with testing medium-voltage cable splices according to the standard IEEE 404 have revealed the shortcoming of the aluminum connectors tested on aluminum conductors with overheating failure. New mechanical power connectors on the market offering range-taking capability and easy installation promise better connectivity and reproducibility based on the shear-bolt technology. This paper discusses the results as obtained in an accelerated aging test on different types of cable splices with both compression and mechanical connectors. Based on the test results, a simple and effective method is also proposed to identify a degraded connector inside a cable splice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing TechnologySame topicElectrical Contact Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207