MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083563826 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2020.0726

Characterisation parameter of atmospheric pollutant concentration for external insulation

2020· article· en· W3083563826 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Cao, Fanghui Yin, Daiming Yang, Liming Wang, M. Farzaneh

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyEnvironmental engineeringChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the equivalent salt deposit density (ESDD) is adopted to characterise the pollution degree and many environmental pollution parameters are used to characterise air pollution. However, the relationships between ESDD and environmental pollution parameters are not clear. For the purpose of studying the influence of environmental factors such as haze‐fog, high‐conductivity fog on the insulators contamination and the equivalence between artificial salt fog and natural highly conductive pollutions, a parameter named equivalent soluble salt concentration (ESSC) was proposed to measure the soluble salt amount of the atmospheric air in this study. Based on the measuring principle, an ESSC measurement platform was developed. The developed platform was tested in the laboratory and used to measure the ESSC in the field. According to the experimental results, it was found that the soluble components deposited on the specimen surface in the field are the same as that in the atmospheric air nearby. As the pollution deposition is an accumulative process, it is expected that combined with ESDD, the ESSC can be used to predict the ESDD, which would be of significance to study the accumulated mechanism of insulator contamination, as well as to the external insulation design.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207