MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probing Armour Losses Formulae from CIGRE Technical Brochure 908 up to 15 kHz

2024· preprint· en· W4403726067 on OpenAlexaff
Pasquale Cambareri, Massimo Bechis, Carlo de Falco, Luca Di Rienzo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSuperconducting Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArmourPhysicsEnvironmental scienceOpticsMaterials scienceEngineering physicsComputer scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper probes the validity up to 15 kHz of the analytical formulae published in the CIGRE Technical Brochure 908 related to the calculation of the armour losses in singlearmoured AC cables, which have been tested in the Brochure at 50 Hz only. After briefly reviewing the theoretical background, and carefully explaining the approximations performed by the Brochure, it is shown that for a typical cable the analytical formulae are reasonably accurate in the estimation of losses up to 15 kHz, but the absolute error increases linearly with frequency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSuperconducting Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207