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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".