MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997189740 · doi:10.3390/info11010029

Importance Analysis of Components of a Multi-Operational-State Power System Using Fault Tree Models

2020· article· en· W2997189740 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leszek Chybowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndependent Electricity System OperatorUniwersytet Szczeciński
KeywordsFault tree analysisDependabilityOperational planningState (computer science)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceTree (set theory)Electric power systemMetamodelingFault (geology)Operations researchEngineeringPower (physics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a case study using a fault tree analysis for a multi-operational-state system (system with several operational states) model with many different technical solutions for the power system of a fishing vessel. We describe the essence of system dependability metamodeling. A vector of external events was used to construct a detailed metamodel, depending on the operational status being modeled. In a fault tree, individual external events modify the structure of a system. The analysis includes the following operational states: sea voyages of a vessel, hauling in and paying out nets, trawling, staying in a port, and heaving to. For each operational state and assumed system configurations, the importance of system components was determined by calculating the Vesely–Fussell measures. The most important components for each operational state of a system were determined, and the critical system components, that is, those that are important in every operational state and system configuration, were identified.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformationSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207