Comparison Between IEEE Std C37.41-2016/Cor 1-2017 and IEC 60282-2:2008 Fuse Cutout Interrupting/Breaking Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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secondary fault current levels (test series/duty 4) have changed considerably compared to the tests in both the superseded 2008 version of IEEE Std.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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".