MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993389070 · doi:10.1109/epec.2011.6070212

Evaluation of wind power commitment risk in system operation

2011· article· en· W1993389070 on OpenAlexaff
Suman Thapa, Rajesh Karki, R. Billinton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerWind power forecastingElectric power systemWind speedReliability engineeringRenewable energyBase load power plantPower system simulationElectricity generationEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)MeteorologyAutomotive engineeringDistributed generationElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental concerns associated with electricity generation and the increased public awareness of renewable energy resources have resulted in world wide and rapid growth of wind power installations. Wind power generation is uncertain, fluctuating and intermittent. It is a major challenge to maintain reliability while operating a power system with significant wind power penetration. The system operator is required to commit an appropriate amount of wind power in combination with other generating units to satisfy the forecast load with acceptable reliability in the lead time considered. Accurate wind power forecasting plays a vital role in estimating the wind power contribution in the specified lead time. The wind power generation in the next hour or next few hours depends upon the initial wind power at the wind site. There is a probability that the actual wind power will be less than the predicted value. This probability can be designated as wind power commitment risk. This paper presents a conditional probability approach to quantify the short term wind power commitment risk using a statistical time series model.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207