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 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

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.

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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
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