MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231475753 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662038

Changeability of arc flash parameters and its impact on hazard mitigation in low voltage power systems

2021· preprint· en· W4231475753 on OpenAlexaff
Abdeslem Kadri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardWork (physics)Arc flashReliability engineeringArc (geometry)Flash (photography)Energy (signal processing)Power (physics)Electric arcComputationComputer scienceFunction (biology)VoltageElectric power systemElectrical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsElectrodeAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arc flashes in power system result in a huge amount of incident energy that can injure human workers. Strict safety measures have to be applied in the work place for safety of technical personnel. Computation of the incident energy is imperative to determine the corresponding safety requirements. Arcing current, and hence incident energy, is a function of some system parameters which may vary due to different reasons. This research work considers the problem of parameter variability in arc flash calculations and its effect on hazard mitigation. A mathematical basis is set forth for the impact of the variation in gap between electrodes and system voltage on the incident energy value. Findings of this work emphasize that small variations in system parameters can yield inaccurate values of incident energy and misleading hazard categories. Therefore, parameter variation has to be carefully accommodated in the arc flash calculations to result in the proper hazard mitigation precautions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 topicElectrical Fault Detection and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207