MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158547153 · doi:10.5006/c2018-11004

Frequency Dependence in AC Harmonic Interference to Pipelines

2018· article· en· W3158547153 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. Trichtchenko, D. H. Boteler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterference (communication)Pipeline transportHarmonicHarmonic analysisMaterials scienceElectromagnetic interferenceFrequency dependenceElectrical engineeringElectronic engineeringEnvironmental scienceAcousticsPhysicsEngineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies of Alternating Current (AC) interference on pipelines from nearby power lines usually consider the fundamental (50Hz or 60Hz) frequency of the power line currents. However, these currents can also contain considerable harmonics of the fundamental AC frequency. Measurements on pipelines in Canada and Sweden have shown that these harmonics can produce significant interference in the pipe-to-soil potentials. The electromagnetic fields experienced by the pipeline are dependent on three types of parameters. The first is associated with the phase relations of the power line harmonics, classified as ‘positive sequence’, ‘negative sequence’, and ‘zero sequence’. The second is related to the conductivity of the host media (ground) that affects the electromagnetic field experienced by a pipeline. The third is pipeline series impedance and parallel admittance, which introduces additional frequency dependence. This paper examines the frequency dependence of the phase relation of the power line currents, the Earth response, and the pipeline response and shows how they can be combined to provide an AC risk assessment.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207