MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32367240 · doi:10.1109/icetce.2012.201

Design Challenges in Hydropower Systems: Trade-offs and Difficulties in Operation

2012· article· en· W32367240 on OpenAlexaff
S. Pejović, Qin Fen Zhang, Bryan Karney, Aleksandar Gajić

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Electric Technology and Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)PresumptionRisk analysis (engineering)LitanyHydroelectricityHydropowerPipeline transportQuality (philosophy)Hydraulic machineryComputer scienceMicroservicesSystems designEngineeringSystems engineeringBusinessMechanical engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydraulic systems experience a variety of challenging conditions including hydraulic transients and oscillations. A long list of complex causes -- including extreme pressures and resonance -- can threaten power plants: the litany of failure is both long and painful, but also instructive. In fact, it is estimated that more than 50% of hydroelectric plants worldwide and other energy-related systems such as water transporting plants, water cooling system in nuclear and other thermal plants, oil pipelines, experience serious trouble or suffer severe operational constraints. We contend here that at least one problem is the presumption that comes from thinking that this is what a well known and used technology, and thus we have grown inattentive. Moreover, we argue that a vigorous and reflective design and review procedure, diligently applied, would be a great assistance not only for the quality of projects but also to assist the education of the next generation of experts. Specifically, we believe that an appropriate design, review, and trial operation procedure could have prevented many recent accidents and troubles.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Electric Technology and Civil EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207