Combined Duval Pentagons: A Simplified Approach
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
The paper describes a newly proposed combination of the two existing Duval Pentagons method utilized for the identification of mineral oil-insulated transformers. The aim of the combination is to facilitate automatic fault identification through computer programs, and at the same time, apply the full capability of both original Pentagons, now reduced to a single geometry. The thorough classification of a given fault (say, of the electrical or thermal kind), employing individual Pentagons 1 and 2, as originally defined, involves a complex geometrical problem that requires the build-up of a convoluted geometry (a regular Pentagon whose axes represent each of five possible combustible gases) to be constructed using computer language code and programming, followed by the logical localization of the geometrical centroid of an irregular pentagon, formed by the partial contribution of individual combustibles, inside two similar structures (Pentagons 1 and 2) that, nonetheless, have different classification zones and boundaries, as more thoroughly explained and exemplified in the main body of this article. The proposed combined approach results in a lower number of total fault zones (10 in the combined Pentagons against 14 when considering Pentagons 1 and 2 separately, although zones PD, S, D1 and D2 are common to both Pentagons 1 and 2), and therefore eliminates the need to solve for two separate Pentagons.
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