MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1612070416 · doi:10.1109/pesgm.2015.7286411

Paradigms and performance of distributed cyber-enabled control schemes for the smart grid

2015· article· en· W1612070416 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridController (irrigation)Cluster analysisDistributed computingGridControl (management)Electric power systemControl theory (sociology)Power controlDistributed generationControl systemTransient (computer programming)Stability (learning theory)Distributed control systemControl engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates and compares distributed control approaches for transient stability in power systems. We consider a simple feedback linearization-based local control technique and the use of spectral clustering to identify control areas. The following distributed control scenarios are considered: 1) distributed control of all area generators, 2) distributed control only at the largest inertia generator of an area, and 3) hierarchical control that entails a combination of centralized (tier-2) and distributed (tier-1) control. We compare the performance of the three control approaches against various faults in the system and we investigate the effect of area clustering outcomes. Numerical results show the effectiveness of the proposed controller schemes against disturbances in the New England power system.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207