MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986337921 · doi:10.1109/tdc.2010.5484204

Transmission grid vulnerability assessment by eigen-sensitivity and cut-set screening

2010· article· en· W1986337921 on OpenAlexaff
X. Liu, G. Joós

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Ranking (information retrieval)Computer scienceGridElectric power transmissionVulnerability assessmentVulnerability (computing)Reliability engineeringTransmission lineIslandingTransmission (telecommunications)Transient (computer programming)Cascading failureTopology (electrical circuits)Set (abstract data type)Electric power systemEngineeringElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsMachine learningComputer securityDistributed generationRenewable energyElectrical engineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the assessment of the vulnerability of the transmission grid under extreme contingencies, including a terrorist threat or an exceptional natural disaster. It proposes a two-step screening-and-ranking approach to find the dynamically most disruptive disturbances created by multiple-line outages. In the screening step, critical transmission lines are selected according to the sensitivities of the critical system eigenvalues to the loss of transmission lines, complemented by a topology analysis that searches for the cut-sets in the system leading to islanding. In the ranking step, time-domain simulations are performed for the contingencies given by the combination of lines screened out in the first step in order to determine and classify their actual dynamic impacts. Results obtained from a test system show that the proposed approach is able to screen out most of the critical multiple-line outages in terms of load shedding and transient stability.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207