MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234959101 · doi:10.1049/pe:20030502

The US blackout timeline

2003· article· en· W4234959101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePower Engineering Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutTimelineTime lineEvent (particle physics)Operations researchComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)AeronauticsTask (project management)HistoryPower (physics)Electric power systemEngineeringSystems engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A joint US-Canada task force has begun examining the blackout that affected large areas of the northeastern USA and Ontario, Canada. In September the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) released an outline of events before and during the cascade. The outline focuses chiefly on events that occurred on major transmission facilities and at large power plants. NERC says the outline "does not attempt to present or explain the linkages between the sequences of events that are described. Determining those linkages will require additional intensive analysis over the weeks to come." Investigators will first check that the timeline is correct The times derive from the `time stamp' in the data record. However, the investigators discovered that some time stamps were not accurate because the computers that recorded the information became backlogged, or the clocks from which the time stamps were derived had not been calibrated to the national time standard. Investigators must determine which events are accurately time-stamped, and build from those events to cross-check other system events from multiple sources to verify the precise time for each event. Some of these events are still not known to the exact second. This paper gives the time-line from the onset of the problem, 12:05:44 p.m., to the total blackout time of 4:13 p.m.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.009

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePower Engineering JournalSame topicPower Systems and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207