Comparison Study of Operation Characteristics of AFCI Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that about 80% of electric fire occurs by arc fault. The arc fault can be generated in loose wire connection or damaged wire, outlets, appliances, extension cords, etc. To mitigate the electric fire, US mandated to use Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) since 2002. Before AFCI has been developed, Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI) were used for prevention of electric shock accident but GFCIs are not able to detect arc fault that is main cause of electric fire. After AFCI requirement of US established, Canada, Europe, New Zealand also adopted the AFCI as mandatory. It is a worldwide trend to mandate AFCI in their countries. We are living in the era of changing from GFCIs to AFCIs. As the demand for AFCIs increases, many studies regarding development of AFCI products and technologies have been conducted but comparison study of operation characteristics of AFCI has not been done yet, thus in this paper we are going to conduct series of arc experiment with several AFCI products and compare their performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".