MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118376150 · doi:10.1109/td39804.2020.9300016

Comparison Between IEEE Std C37.41-2016/Cor 1-2017 and IEC 60282-2:2008 Fuse Cutout Interrupting/Breaking Tests

2020· article· en· W3118376150 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsPowertech Labs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuse (electrical)Reliability engineeringFault (geology)EngineeringTransformerElectrical engineeringComputer scienceVoltageSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High voltage fuse cutouts have been used by utilities for close to 100 years, and provide an inexpensive and reliable method of fault protection for the distribution system. Modern distribution cutouts are designed to operate across a full range of interrupting current levels, and are tested to IEEE Std. C37.41-2016/Cor 1-2017 for North America or IEC Std. 60282-2:2008 for Europe and Asia. Before 2016 the interrupting or breaking tests in the IEEE and IEC Standards were very similar. With the revision of IEEE Std. C37.41 in 2016/2017, the interrupting tests in the IEEE Standard are now significantly different than the breaking tests in the IEC Standard. Specifically, the tests for transformer secondary fault current levels (test series/duty 4) have changed considerably compared to the tests in both the superseded 2008 version of IEEE Std. C37.41 and the active version of IEC Std. 60282-2. These differences may have an impact on the performance of existing cutout designs when testing to IEEE Std. C37.41-2016/Cor 1-2017.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.253 · 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