MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W90105945 · doi:10.5006/c2001-01604

AC Mitigation Requirements: A Parametric Analysis

2001· article· en· W90105945 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Southey, Winston Ruan, F. Dawalibi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a parametric analysis in which required mitigation wire length is determined for a pipeline subjected to magnetic field induction from a nearby high voltage transmission line, during load conditions. The effects of the following variables on induced voltages and mitigation requirements are studied: length of parallelism, separation distance, transmission line cross-sectional configuration, type of static wire, soil resistivity, load current magnitude, and pipeline/transmission line crossings. The goal is to provide the reader with a means to estimate mitigation requirements before a detailed study is performed. In the scenarios studied, which are based on a reference case consisting of a 10-mile (16.1 km) parallelism between a well coated 24" (61 cm) pipeline and a 230 kV transmission line carrying a load current of 1000 A, the required length of zinc anode ribbon, which provides the mitigation, varies from 0 to 1320 feet (402 m). Note that this does not include the length of ribbon that might be required to protect exposed pipeline appurtenances, although this requirement is discussed in the paper, nor does it include the length of ribbon that would be required to protect the pipeline coating from damage during fault conditions. Fault conditions will be the subject of a subsequent paper.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207