Normalization of double-circuit overhead line magnetic field inside Khrushchev building

This paper deals with the mitigation of 110 kV double-circuit overhead line magnetic field inside five-story Khrushchev buildings. We show that the magnetic field can exceed the reference level 0.5 μT in 90 % part of living space. To mitigate the magnetic field, we propose the inverted L-shaped grid shield with conductors on the wall and in the attic of the building. Using the analytical model of the grid shield and the numerical simulation, we determine the parameters of the L-shaped grid shield which provides the magnetic field normalization in 97 % part of living space. Further improvement of the grid shield profile, in particular, the placement of some conductors in the basement, allows to reduce the quantity of metal of the shield by 15 % while maintaining the shielding efficiency. Also we consider the magnetic field normalization for the overhead line with a rated current of 500 A. In this case, the quantity of metal of the grid shield increases 2.74 times.

On the quest for currencies of science

Purpose The introduction of “altmetrics” as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on “exchange rates (ERs)” for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.