Ranking of Routes for Electrical Transmission Lines Using GIS and Image Processing Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting a route for an electrical transmission line is the first step of building a new transmission line. The most common practice of selecting a route involves ranking possible route options, which is a complex process that demands many decision considerations to be taken into account. The ranking process is mainly done manually by humans using printed maps and field surveys that makes it time-consuming and prone to errors. In this paper, we study the most common decision considerations that affect the process of ranking a set of route options. We classify these decision considerations into four main categories. Then, we propose a methodology to automate the process of ranking routes for an electrical transmission line using GIS (Geographic Information System) and image processing techniques. We evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology by comparing the results obtained with industrial results of an actual project in Saskatoon, Canada. The preliminary results are very promising. Out of five route options, our methodology ranks the top two options accurately, and it successfully identifies the least preferred route options.
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.
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 it