MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416010360 · doi:10.1109/tdei.2025.3630158

Effect of Smoke on Corona and Breakdown Characteristics of Air Under Positive and Negative DC Voltages

2025· article· W4416010360 on OpenAlexafffund
Gevindu Ediriweera, Anupa Ekanayaka, Jeff Laninga, Nathan D. Jacob, Athula Rajapakse, Behzad Kordi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsManitoba Hydro
KeywordsPartial dischargeCorona dischargeVoltageSmokeCorona (planetary geology)Breakdown voltageBrush dischargeAir gap (plumbing)Direct current

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires generate a large amount of smoke which primarily contains fine particles that can participate in gas discharge mechanisms under dc electric fields. This paper presents an experimental study evaluating corona discharge and breakdown characteristics of air under various levels of smoke at positive and negative dc voltages. Discharge pulse repetition rate, average discharge current, and partial discharge inception voltage are investigated as corona discharge characteristics of a needle-plane air gap while the breakdown voltage is measured as breakdown characteristics of air in a uniform electric field. The experimental findings show that the positive and negative dc breakdown voltage of a uniform-field air gap under the considered smoke levels is not significant. Additionally, except for the average discharge current, the impact of smoke on negative dc corona characteristics is negligible. The average discharge current under negative dc voltage shows a decrease for increasing smoke densities. The effect of smoke on positive dc corona is terminal and caused by the particle deposition from smoke on electrodes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical InsulationSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207