MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967573320 · doi:10.1109/icra.2019.8794397

LineRanger: Analysis and Field Testing of an Innovative Robot for Efficient Assessment of Bundled High-Voltage Powerlines

2019· article· en· W2967573320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre-Luc Richard, Nicolas Pouliot, François Morin, Marco Lepage, Philippe Hamelin, M. Lagacc, Alex Sartor, Ghislain Lambert, Serge Montambault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Inspection Robots
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacleSoftware deploymentRobotComputer scienceField (mathematics)Key (lock)GridReal-time computingControl engineeringSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotic platforms dedicated to powerline inspection are often complex to operate, take several minutes to cross any obstacle, and must be operated by highly trained specialists. To further its goal of massive inspection of its power grid, Hydro-Québec developed an innovative robot that is simple to operate and can be used directly by line maintenance technicians. LineRanger was developed following the field deployment of LineROVer and LineScout but aims at surpassing them in terms of inspection efficiency. With an ingenious and passive obstacle-crossing system, this new robot allows large-scale inspection of bundled-type powerlines, since the obstacle crossing time is considerably reduced. In this paper, details on the robot's key features are presented along with its mathematical analysis, which guarantees its stability on flexible bundles and directly influenced the design. Finally, the LineRanger prototype is presented, with insights about its first field deployments.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207