Combined Adequacy and Static Security Considerations in Transmission System Reinforcement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in designing and applying deterministic techniques that include probabilistic considerations in order to assess increased system stress due to the restructured electricity environment. The overall reliability framework proposed in this paper incorporates the deterministic N-1 criterion in a probabilistic framework, and results in the joint inclusion of both adequacy and static security considerations in system planning. The combined framework is achieved using system well-being analysis and traditional adequacy assessment. System well-being analysis is used to quantify the degree of N-1 security and N-1 insecurity in terms of probabilities and frequencies. Traditional adequacy assessment is incorporated to quantify the magnitude of the severity and consequences associated with system failure. A sequential Monte Carlo simulation approach is utilized in this paper for bulk electric system reliability assessment. The combined adequacy and security framework presented in this paper can assist system planners to realize the overall benefits associated with a system reinforcement option based on the degree of adequacy and security, and therefore facilitate the decision making process. Possible reinforcement alternatives for a test system are examined using reliability cost/reliability worth considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it