MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001965107 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2013.2295514

Trends in Microgrid Control

2014· article· en· W2001965107 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Olivares, Ali Mehrizi‐Sani, Claudio A. Cañizares, Reza Iravani, Mehrdad Kazerani, Amir H. Hajimiragha, Oriol Gomis‐Bellmunt, Maryam Saeedifard, Rodrigo Palma-­Behnke, Guillermo Jiménez‐Estévez, Nikos Hatziargyriou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrogridVoltage droopViewpointsControl (management)Control engineeringRenewable energyGridEngineeringComputer scienceModel predictive controlDistributed power generationReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Distributed generationElectrical engineeringBusinessVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing interest in integrating intermittent renewable energy sources into microgrids presents major challenges from the viewpoints of reliable operation and control. In this paper, the major issues and challenges in microgrid control are discussed, and a review of state-of-the-art control strategies and trends is presented; a general overview of the main control principles (e.g., droop control, model predictive control, multi-agent systems) is also included. The paper classifies microgrid control strategies into three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary, where primary and secondary levels are associated with the operation of the microgrid itself, and tertiary level pertains to the coordinated operation of the microgrid and the host grid. Each control level is discussed in detail in view of the relevant existing technical literature.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2,986
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207