MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902945494 · doi:10.1109/ceidp.2018.8544803

Frequency Response of Transformer Winding: A Case Study based on a Laboratory Model

2018· article· en· W2902945494 on OpenAlexaff
R. M. Youssouf, R. S. A. Ferreira, F. Meghnefi, Hassan Ezzaidi, I. Fofana, Patrick Picher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformerFrequency responseComputer scienceElectromagnetic coilReliability engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researchers have been studying frequency response analysis measurements and its relevant interpretations. Nowadays, the measurements have been well standardized. However, more objective results interpretation is still needed. This research used a laboratory winding model to enable the simulation of mechanical defects and obtained controlled measurements of its frequency response. The vectfit and the Chinese standard methods were used to compare different interpretations. Results indicated an agreement between the vectfit method and the experimental data, demonstrating that the model has potential of providing a powerful tool to interpretation of power transformer frequency behaviour. Nonetheless, the Chinese standard failed to show the severity of the defects, indicating a normal winding for some cases evaluated. For an overall maintenance strategy, frequency response tests can help taking restorative measures before deterioration reaches a point where failure of the transformer is inevitable.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207