MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Gassing of Insulating Fluids

2021· article· en· W3193783340 on OpenAlex
I. Fofana

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
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissolved gas analysisTransformerTransformer oilProcess engineeringGas compositionPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the end of the 1950s, the extraction of dissolved gases from an oil sample and the determination of the nature and concentration of these gases have been serving as a means of faults detection. The type and extent of a defect can often be diagnosed from the composition of the gases and the rate at which they are produced. This technique, known as Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) for detecting certain categories of faults in oil-filled devices that cannot be readily detected by other conventional methods, remains one of the most widely used today. Although there is general consensus that increasing the concentration of dissolved gas is a precursor of local deterioration of insulation, opinions differ when it comes to interpretation of the symptoms. Consequently, the first step towards improving the accuracy of DGA techniques should be understanding the mechanisms associated with chemical reactions contributing to the generation of fault gases in transformer oils. This article intends to show how the chemical composition of the insulation system may affect the analyses. Some data was also included for further understanding.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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