MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969040588 · doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:20045117

Impact of intentional islanding of distributed generation on electricity market prices

2006· article· en· W1969040588 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

VenueIEE Proceedings - Generation Transmission and Distribution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIslanding Detection in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslandingElectricity marketElectricityBusinessGenerator (circuit theory)Mains electricityElectricity retailingElectric power industryUpstream (networking)Electric powerElectricity generationDeregulationDistributed generationIndustrial organizationComputer sciencePower (physics)Environmental economicsEconomicsElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringMarket economyRenewable energyVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The battle for electricity customers in an increasingly competitive and deregulated market environment is one of the challenges facing the electric power utilities of today. Customers expect a reliable and efficient supply of power from their utilities. One of the advantages that a distributed generator (DG) can provide to the electric utility and to customers is the possibility of improving the continuity of supply by implementing safe intentional islands in the event of upstream utility supply outage. Implementing intentional islanding of DG in a deregulated era will have an impact on electricity market prices. This problem is considered in this paper by solving the optimal power flow problem while accounting for islanded operation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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