Refractive effects and difference in absorption between $^{12}$C + $^{16}$O and $^{12}$C + $^{18}$O
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydro-Québec has used a new approach for Reliability Assessment with a prototype called FIORD, a French acronym for a global reliability assessment system. What were the context and the reasons for these new developments? What's new in this approach? How does it work? What did it bring? In the context of recommending a distribution MV grid automation program, Hydro-Québec had to evaluate the benefits of various automation scenarios in order to compare the expected improvements with the present situation. The study had to cover the entire distribution MV grid, using input data representing correctly the present situation and simulation techniques which are sensitive to various scenarios according to the improvements brought by new technologies. In order to fulfill these requirements, a new global approach had to be introduced. The FIORD prototype is based on a new method for the calculation of outage duration for each delivery point: • Detailed simulation of the Outage / Restoration process • System modelling representing: protection, switching, monitoring, communication, remote control, etc. • Analysis and reasoning • Decision making and action In addition, each study covers a set of feeders – possibly a region or the whole distribution MV grid – where various scenarios are compared. In each scenario, automatic modifications of feeders' topology and equipment are brought according to designer's rules. This global approach allowed Hydro-Quebec to quantify the improvement of the reliability of its distribution MV grid due to 9 major scenarios. Such a study would have been impossible with the available reliability assessment tools: • 24300 studies would have been necessary with present software. • Restoration time for a delivery point would not have taken into account the particularities of each scenario. Therefore, the new global approach developed for FIORD is a technical Breakthrough. Upgrading existing tools in order to include FIORD's new approach becomes a necessity. Now, the new methodology developed for this prototype has to be incorporated into a commercial high quality software and benefit of all its valuable features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".