MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999912552 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2011.2120633

Incorporating Wind Power in Generating Capacity Reliability Evaluation Using Different Models

2011· article· en· W1999912552 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Billinton, Dange Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind speedWind powerReliability (semiconductor)Autoregressive–moving-average modelAutoregressive modelMonte Carlo methodElectric power systemMarkov chainTime seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Moving averageComputer scienceReliability engineeringMeteorologyPower (physics)EngineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appropriate wind speed modeling is an important requirement in the reliability evaluation of wind integrated electric power systems. This paper examines and illustrates the effects on the generating capacity adequacy indices of a small test system of using different wind speed modeling procedures in Monte Carlo simulation and analytical reliability assessment. Wind speed data for a number of different time periods at two quite diverse locations in Canada are used in the studies. Wind speed is represented using hourly observed data, hourly mean wind speed data, autoregressive moving average (ARMA) time series, moving average (MA) time series, Normal distribution, and Markov chain models.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations85
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207