MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972420555 · doi:10.1109/ieeegcc.2015.7060021

Load model effect on distributed generation allocation and feeders' reconfiguration in unbalanced distribution systems

2015· article· en· W1972420555 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationSizingDistributed generationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationGenetic algorithmVoltageNetwork topologyPower (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)Electric power systemDistributed computingReliability engineeringEngineeringComputer networkElectrical engineeringMathematicsEmbedded systemRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limitation of fossil fuels and the environmental constraints established by the Kyoto Protocol and other governmental initiatives caused the allocation of distributed generation (DG) to be a vital pillar in power system planning. Improper selection of the sizing and siting of DG systems can reduce their advantages. Network reconfiguration problem is to find a best configuration of distribution systems that gives minimum energy loss with satisfying the imposed operating constraints. This paper investigates the effect of load model on DG allocation and network reconfiguration problems. The proposed algorithm implemented and tested on the 25-bus unbalanced distribution system and the impact of load models is demonstrated. The constraints involved include voltage limits, line current limits, and radial topology.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207