MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313413131 · doi:10.1109/tia.2022.3233558

Testing Ground Fault Protection of Generating Units With Frequency-Selective Grounding

2023· article· en· W4313413131 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundResidual-current deviceElectrical impedanceFault (geology)EngineeringEarthing systemHigh impedanceElectrical engineeringGenerator (circuit theory)Electronic engineeringPhysicsPower (physics)Circuit breaker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper experimentally evaluates responses of ground fault protection for synchronous generators, which are grounded using frequency-selective grounding. Frequency-selective grounding is designed to provide a low ground impedance path (similar to solid grounding) for high frequency zero-sequence current components. This grounding system also provides an impedance similar to a low-resistance grounding for low frequency zero-sequence current components. The frequency-dependent equivalent impedance of frequency-selective grounding can affect ground potential and current, which are typically used as inputs for ground fault protective relays. Effects of frequency-selective grounding on ground fault protection are experimentally evaluated using a 7.5 kVA synchronous generator. Experimental tests are conducted for different implementations of ground fault protection, when responding to fault and non-fault events. Evaluation results detailed in this paper demonstrate the negligible effects of frequency-selective grounding on responses of different ground fault protective relays.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.208 · 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