MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320005515 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2023.3242450

Reliability Assessment of Distribution Stations Considering Spare Transformer Sharing

2023· article· en· W4320005515 on OpenAlex
G. Hamoud

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 Power Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpare partReliability engineeringTransformerProbabilistic logicMarkov chainReliability (semiconductor)Distribution transformerEngineeringComputer scienceMarkov processMarkov modelMathematicsStatisticsOperations managementElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reliability study has been performed recently at Hydro One to evaluate the reliability of groups of distribution stations involved in a spare transformer sharing policy. The groups may include distribution utilities stations and distribution customer own stations. The study used a probabilistic method based on stationary Markov models and two performance criteria namely the group availability criterion and the total cost criterion in the evaluation. The study results demonstrate that the number of spare transformers required for the groups involved in the spare transformer sharing policy will be reduced while maintaining almost the same reliability levels of individual groups. The purpose of this paper is to describe the study, its reliability assessment method and to illustrate it using a sample system.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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