MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1827877219 · doi:10.1109/pes.2004.1372948

Experiences in aggregating distributed generation for system benefit

2004· article· en· W1827877219 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Osborn

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBruce Power
KeywordsDispatchable generationStandby powerElectric power systemElectricity generationDemand responseComputer scienceGenerator (circuit theory)BusinessPower (physics)Electrical engineeringReliability engineeringDistributed generationEngineeringElectricityRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many data centers, medical complexes, government facilities, factories and other commercial buildings have standby electrical generators. Quiet for most of the year, the generators are only used in the event of a power outage or for periodic testing. Portland General Electric (PGE) offers a program aimed at supplying capacity resources that utilizes these hidden resources to their full potential as a single aggregated generating peaking plant. PGE's "dispatchable standby generation" (DSG) program currently ties together 15 MWs of standby generators to support peak power demand on PGE's system and to ensure reliable service for customers. This power can also help avoid buying wholesale power when prices are skyrocketing or may allow less expensive resources to be utilized while DSG power can be counted as reserve capacity. DSG generator power first supplies power to its designed load at the facility and any excess power flows into the PGE system. To the PGE system grid, this appears as a drop in load and a small increase in supply. Finally, PGE links the GenOnSys application to PGE's system control center's energy management system via a secure fiber connection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004.Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207