Modeling Geomagnetically Induced Currents in the Alberta Power Network: Comparison and Validation Using Hall Probe Measurements During a Magnetic Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During space weather events, geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) induce geoelectric fields which drive geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) through electrically‐grounded power transmission lines. Alberta, Canada—located near the auroral zone and thus prone to large GMDs—has a dense network of magnetometer stations and surface impedance measurements to better characterize the GMD and ground conductivity, respectively. GIC monitoring devices were recently installed at five substation transformer neutrals, providing a unique opportunity to compare data to modeled GICs. GICs are modeled across the >240 kV provincial power transmission network during a moderate GMD event on 24 April 2023. GIC monitoring devices measured larger neutral‐to‐ground currents than expected up to 117 Amps during peak storm time, providing unequivocal evidence linking network GICs with GMDs. The model performs reasonably well (correlation coefficients >0.5; performance parameter >0.15) at four of five substations, but generally underestimates peak GIC values (sometimes by a factor >2), suggesting that the present model underrepresents overall network risk. The model performs poorly at one of the five substations (correlation = 0.46; performance parameter = 0.10), the reasons for which may be due to simplifications and/or unknowns in network parameters. Despite these underestimates, during this GMD, the model predicts the largest GIC at substations located in the northeastern part of the province (240 kV) or around Edmonton (500 kV)—regions which have significant electrical and industrial infrastructure. Further refinement of the network model with transformer resistances, more line and earthing resistances, and/or including lower voltage levels is necessary to improve data fit.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".