MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1863172992 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2001.933531

Composite systems operating reserve assessment using a reliability framework

2002· article· en· W1863172992 on OpenAlex
R. Billinton, Mahmud Fotuhi‐Firuzabad

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 Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)ContingencyComposite numberComputer scienceTransmission systemPower system simulationTransmission (telecommunications)Unit (ring theory)Electric power systemEngineeringTelecommunicationsAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unit commitment analysis in composite generation and transmission systems is presented in this paper using a reliability approach designated as the well-being framework. Assessment of unit commitment in a composite system incorporates the ability of the transmission system to deliver the generated energy to the major load points. A contingency enumeration technique is used to determine the composite system well-being indices for a given number of committed units. The IEEE-Reliability Test System (IEEE-RTS) is used to illustrate the techniques and procedures presented in this 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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207