MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probabilistic Safety Risk Assessment near Transmission Line Structures under Fault Conditions

2024· article· en· W4399940027 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Hydro
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicReliability engineeringComputer scienceFault (geology)Transmission lineRisk assessmentProbabilistic risk assessmentComputer securityEngineeringArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grounding system is an essential part of the transmission line system. In the last decade, more transmission lines have been constructed near urban areas that share the land with other public infrastructures, such as commercial lots, parks, playgrounds, walking trails, etc. This co-location raises safety concerns due to touch and step voltage hazards near transmission line structures under power line faulty conditions. In many countries, there is no national standard to tackle this concern and provide clear regulations. To overcome this issue, a probabilistic risk assessment method is utilized in this paper, which serves as a great tool to quantify this risk and make it possible to compare it with other common risks to develop acceptable criteria. A methodology is developed to determine the probability of risk, and each parameter used in the calculation is refined based on historical operational records and monitoring data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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