MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining Lightning-Critical Locations along Transmission Lines using LiDAR Data - a BC Hydro Approach

2021· article· en· W4205707766 on OpenAlexaff
Zemeng Wang, Jahangir Khan, Mažana Armstrong

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsPowertech Labs (Canada)BC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)Electric power transmissionTransmission lineTerrainShielded cableSpan (engineering)Lightning detectionLine (geometry)LidarElectromagnetic shieldingComputer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)Remote sensingPower (physics)Electrical engineeringMeteorologyEngineeringGeologyTelecommunicationsGeographyCivil engineeringThunderstormPhysicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BC Hydro's high-voltage transmission lines are generally not shielded due to low keraunic levels. In addition, transmission lines in BC span across mostly rugged and mountainous terrains which would make the addition of shielding very costly. However, lightning performance remains an important consideration when designing transmission lines, especially in critical locations along the length of a line that are highly exposed to lightning. This article describes BC Hydro's methodology to determine lightning-critical locations based on advanced LiDAR data and implemented in an in-house developed tool. A casestudy for identifying locations critical to the overall lightning performance of a transmission line is presented. Validation of the proposed methodology against the historical lightning performance records is given. It is anticipated that a similar approach can be used by other power utilities to determine lightning critical locations, and to identify optimum design solutions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207