MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215225131 · doi:10.1109/mper.2002.4312521

Estimating Overpressures in Pole-Type Distribution Transformers, Part II: Prediction Tools

2002· article· en· W3215225131 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

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverpressureTransformerCircuit breakerDistribution transformerOil tankEngineeringFuse (electrical)Structural engineeringElectrical impedanceGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineeringVoltageElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-impedance faults are difficult to contain from the point of view of cover retention and tank rupture in pole-type distribution transformers. Evaluation of a transformer's containment capabilities needs to consider two aspects: the overpressure caused by an arc of given parameters and the pressure withstand of the tank. This paper presents two methods to calculate overpressures as a function of the arc and all the relevant geometrical parameters: tank diameter, air space height, and the depth of the arc below the oil. Both methods have been validated with experiments. Results of tests to determine the pressure withstand of typical tanks are presented. It was found that an average value of the overpressure withstand capability is around 100 kPa. For a given tank geometry and fault parameters, a current-limiting fuse would be reqwred if the methods proposed here predict an overpressure over 100 kPa.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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