MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969557628 · doi:10.1109/pmaps.2010.5528975

Wind power planning and operating capacity credit assessment

2010· article· en· W1969557628 on OpenAlexaff
R. Billinton, D. Huang, B. Karki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerContext (archaeology)Wind speedCapacity planningElectric power systemNameplate capacityComputer scienceReliability engineeringEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringMeteorologyElectrical engineeringElectricity generationOperations managementGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind is an important energy source and is regarded as a valuable alternative to more traditional electric power generating sources. Generating capacity from wind power behaves quite differently than that from more conventional sources as the wind is variable, intermittent and both terrain and site specific. The capacity credit that can be assigned to a particular wind power site is therefore highly dependent on the wind regime at that site. This paper examines the concept of the capacity credit associated with one or more wind farms using the IEEE-Reliability Test System. The studies are focused on wind power capacity credit in the conventional power system planning sense and on the capacity credit associated with one or more wind farms in a system operating context. The basic probability indices of Loss of Load Expectation, Loss of Energy Expectation and Unit Commitment Risk are used to assess the Increase in Peak Load Carrying Capability attributable to an added wind facility and the assigned capacity credit. The analyses are extended to consider multiple wind sites with dependent and independent wind regimes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207