MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201616183 · doi:10.3390/su131810369

Industry 4.0 Contribution to Asset Management in the Electrical Industry

2021· article· en· W3201616183 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Biard, Georges Abdul-Nour

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataAsset (computer security)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)MultitudeAsset managementElectricityElectric power industryBusinessEngineeringComputer securityPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industry 4.0 has revolutionized paradigms by leading to major technological developments in several sectors, including the energy sector. Aging equipment fleets and changing demand are challenges facing electricity companies. Forced to limit resources, these organizations must question their method and the current model of asset management (AM). The objective of this article is to detail how industry 4.0 can improve the AM of electrical networks from a global point of view. To do so, the industry 4.0 tools will be presented, as well as a review of the literature on their application and benefits in this area. From the literature review conducted, we observe that once properly structured and managed, big data forms the basis for the implementation of advanced tools and technologies in electrical networks. The data generated by smart grids and data compiled for several years in electrical networks have the characteristics of big data. Therefore, it leaves room for a multitude of possibilities for comprehensive analysis and highly relevant information. Several tools and technologies, such as modeling, simulation as well as the use of algorithms and IoT, combined with big data analysis, leads to innovations that serve a common goal. They facilitate the control of reliability-related risks, maximize the performance of assets, and optimize the intervention frequency. Consequently, they minimize the use of resources by helping decision-making processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.261
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207