MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407214906 · doi:10.23919/emc.2006.10852069

Correlation of Characteristics of Currents and Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Lightning Return Strokes to the CN Tower

2006· article· en· W4407214906 on OpenAlexaff
A.M. Hussein, Monika Milewski, W. Janischewskyj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTowerLightning (connector)Electromagnetic fieldElectrical engineeringPhysicsAcousticsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simultaneous measurements of the return- stroke lighting current derivative at the CN Tower and the lightning generated electromagnetic pulse at a distance of 2 km north of the tower have been performed since 1991 using broadband high-resolution measurement systems. The recent installation of global positioning system (GPS) units for time synchronization of CN Tower lightning measurement stations has enabled the correlation of the characteristics of the return-stroke current, measured at the tower, with the characteristics of its generated electromagnetic field, measured 2 km north of the tower. The characteristics of the CN Tower lightning-generated electric and magnetic fields were also correlated. In this paper, the current and field analysis is based on the 2005 CN Tower lightning return-stroke data. Excellent and strong linear correlation was established between the magnetic field peak and the current peak. However, only a weak correlation was found between the magnetic field peak and the peak of the current derivative. The risetime of the electromagnetic pulse was also correlated to the current risetime. It is hoped that this paper will not only help in the establishment of simple return-stroke models at elevated structures, but also contributes to the inverse problem where lightning currents are to be estimated from field data. The obtained results are especially relevant to lightning occurring at tall structures or in mountainous areas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207