MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnosing Fuel Pumps, Power Transducers, CTs, and PTs via Fuel-Power Function and 2oo3 Voting

2020· article· en· W3106812737 on OpenAlexaff
Ali R. Al-Roomi, M.E. El-Hawary

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadratic functionComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)TransformerElectric power systemAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)Quadratic equationEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In power system operation, the actual operating cost of thermal generating units can be estimated by employing what is called a fuel-cost function. This function can be expressed as a linear, quadratic, or cubic equation. The unit operating cost is the dependent variable, while the independent variable can be the active or reactive power generated by that unit. The mathematical expression of this fuel-cost function is modeled by fitting a curve to match the actual unit readings. In regression analysis, it is known that if there is a relation between two variables, a transposed relation can also be created by making the predictor the subject of the formula instead of the response. In other words, the independent variable is taken as a dependent variable. This study aims to benefit from the fuel-cost function in estimating the unit power output. This means that a fuel-power function can be designed from the fuel-cost function. To validate this claim, a numerical experiment is carried out based on data collected from a real gas turbine (GT). A novel diagnosing system is proposed to check the status of fuel pumps, power transducers, current transformers, and potential transformers by merging the areas of power system automation, control, operation, and protection through a 2 out of 3 (2oo3) voting logic system.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207