MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389796970 · doi:10.21275/sr23907110409

Optimized Design of Lightning Protection using Rolling Sphere Method

2023· article· en· W4389796970 on OpenAlex
Marwa Abbas Almaazmi

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire Detection and Safety Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)MeteorologyAeronauticsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringGeographyPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Article is going to furnish information about all lightning protection schemes that has to be provided for some types of buildings in order to provide a rigid protection against lightning strikes. International Standard IEC 62305 recommends to use three methods of lightning protection systems, either mesh, protection angle or rolling sphere. A summary of a case study conducted at Canada for one of the AIS Substation will be discussed. The substation initially designed to use lightning protection system, and thenafter some decades the same was upgraded to rolling sphere method. Comparison will be made to show how the optimum selection of lightning protection scheme saves time, cost and has direct impact on the environment, in terms of reducing the number of main components utilized for a building.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.254 · 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