MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transformers Faults Prediction Using Machine Learning Approach

2023· article· en· W4385487213 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanane Hadiki, Fouad Slaoui Hasnaoui, Georges Semaan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsTransformerComputer scienceDecision treeMachine learningReliability engineeringVoltageArtificial intelligenceData miningEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maintenance of transformers is crucial for ensuring their proper functioning. Due to the high expenses associated with maintenance, finding alternative methods to maintain these expensive electrical components has become a priority, as opposed to relying solely on traditional methods. In this paper, Machine Learning algorithms were used for fault prediction in transformers. These algorithms were trained using measurements data of the three-phase currents and voltages. Several algorithms were employed and evaluated to determine the performing ones. Results show that K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm and Decision Trees gave the best accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Transformer Diagnostics and InsulationFrench-language works237,207