MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399798468 · doi:10.1049/icp.2024.0606

Hydrophobicity classification of RTV silicone rubber-coated insulators using deep learning algorithms

2023· article· en· W4399798468 on OpenAlexaff
Farook Mustafa, Ayman El‐Hag

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicone rubberMaterials scienceNatural rubberComputer scienceSiliconeAlgorithmComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outdoor polymeric insulators based on silicone rubber are widely used in power transmission and distribution networks. They exhibit several advantages like light weight, vandalism resistance and superior pollution performance due to their hydrophobic surface property. However, silicone rubber insulators suffer from aging that will lead to the loss of their hydrophobicity property. Various methods have been used to classify the hydrophobicity of the insulator surface including static and dynamic contact angle measurement and hydrophobicity class as per the IEC 62073 standard. The main goal of this paper is to use deep learning techniques to automatically assess the hydrophobicity classes (as per the IEC 62073 standards) of non-ceramic insulators under various conditions. A dataset of the hydrophobicity classes (HC1-HC6) was created including 4197 images each having 224×224 pixels size to train the proposed model. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Transfer Learning (TL) were used in this study to categorize and evaluate the hydrophobicity classes of ceramic insulators coated with room-temperature vulcanized silicone rubber. Compared to other CNN pre-trained models, the MobileNet model was found to have the highest accuracy and the lowest training time under several conditions, with maximum classification accuracy of 97.8%.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicHigh voltage insulation and dielectric phenomenaFrench-language works237,207