On the determinability of all of the self‐ and mutual resistances in a grounded electrode array
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the geophysical electrical resistivity method, arrays of electrodes are commonly deployed on the Earth's surface. In electrical power engineering applications, arrays of electrodes are often connected in parallel in order to reduce the total resistance to ground. The electrical characteristics of an array of N electrodes can be fully described by N self‐resistances and mutual resistances for a total of independent parameters which represent the coefficients of an N by N symmetric matrix. Typically, certain linear combinations of the mutual resistances are measured during a geophysical electrical resistivity survey while protocols of specific measurements are used to determine self‐resistances. In this contribution, I investigate whether it is possible to determine all of the self‐ and mutual resistances for an array and hence capture all possible information. I assume that measurements of potential and current can be made at each electrode and that any combination of series and parallel current injections between the electrodes can be made. I show that all resistances can only be determined uniquely if current and voltage reference electrodes that are external to the array are used. If only an external current electrode or only an external voltage reference is used then only independent measurements can be made and the system is underdetermined. If only electrodes within the array itself are available only, independent measurements can be made and the system is strongly underdetermined. The procedure outlined here also gives a general prescription for calculating the completeness and redundancy of any given array.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".