MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ensemble Method For Fault Detection & Classification in Transmission Lines Using ML

2023· article· en· W4378192035 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Hayyan Bin Shahid, Akramul Azim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault (geology)Fault indicatorDowntimeFault coverageLine (geometry)Electric power transmissionTransmission lineReliability engineeringComputer scienceStuck-at faultReliability (semiconductor)Fault detection and isolationReal-time computingPower (physics)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringMathematicsTelecommunicationsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faults in a transmission line (TL) are the most common faults faced by almost every power station. Suppose these faults are not detected in time. In that case, they can result in multiple losses, such as a loss in an estimated power generation w.r.t predicted time and financial losses. In order to investigate the fault, the systematic approach of an engineer would be first to detect whether there is a fault or not. If a fault is detected in the transmission line, it should be classified as soon as possible. The following classifications would help the maintenance team identify the fault type: line fault, line-to-line fault, double line fault, triple line fault, single-line-to-ground fault, double line-to-ground fault, three-phase fault, and no fault. This paper proposes that the ensemble method, using the Machine Learning (ML) technique, will help the engineers detect and classify the faults in the transmission line. The investigation also trained and tested multiple ML classifiers to inform better recommendations. The shared research will help the user find the best possible ML results for predicting faults in the transmission line. Hence early and accurate fault detection will enhance safety and reliability and reduce interruption and downtime.

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 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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207