MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Global and Brazilian Perspectives on Managing Ground Potential Rise at Overhead AC Transmission Structures during Power Frequency Faults : Invited Lecture: CIGRE Technical Brochure 694 Tutorial

2019· article· en· W3000525199 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Chisholm, José Antônio Jardini, Paulo Edmundo da Fonseca Freire, CA George Watt, FR Lionel Figueroa, BR Oswaldo Regis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundElectric power transmissionOverhead (engineering)Ground-penetrating radarTowerOverhead lineTransmission lineReliability engineeringSoil resistivityEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Electrical engineeringCivil engineeringTelecommunicationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The awareness of the potential safety risk is paramount in the safe operation of overhead transmission lines. The consequence of safety hazards from touch, step and transferred voltages due to Ground Potential Rise (GPR) cannot be ignored or under-estimated. A CIGRE Technical Brochure [1] has been developed to provide a brief overview of the source of the GPR problems related to ground current from ac line faults to the line grounding systems. The GPR issues are sensitive to the soil resistivity near the tower and to other factors. Any safety risk mitigation may require stringent measures at locations where public access is frequent and to a lesser degree when the access is extremely rare. The GPR mitigation should be designed to ensure any potential hazards be kept to acceptable levels.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207