MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002847944 · doi:10.1109/tste.2012.2190999

A Simplified Risk-Based Method for Short-Term Wind Power Commitment

2012· article· en· W2002847944 on OpenAlexaff
Rajesh Karki, Suman Thapa, R. Billinton

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerElectric power systemWind power forecastingReliability engineeringWind speedPower system simulationRenewable energyProbabilistic logicComputer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)MeteorologyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The installation of wind power systems is growing rapidly all over the world mainly due to increased environmental concerns regarding electricity generation and the perceived need to use renewable energy resources. The uncertain and intermittent nature of wind power has led to growing problems in integrating wind power in power systems as the wind power penetration continues to increase. One of the main challenges faced in power system operation with high wind penetration is to maintain the system reliability when committing an appropriate amount of power from a wind farm in the lead time considered. Commitment of wind power is a crucial task, which requires accurate wind power forecasting. Statistical methods employing time series model have been used to predict the short term wind power with reasonable accuracy. The short term (up to 4-6 hours) wind power is dependent upon the initial wind power and the wind site. Any future prediction contains a certain amount of risk. Short term wind power commitment is therefore also dependent upon the acceptable risk criterion, which is a managerial decision. This paper presents a conditional probabilistic method within a time series model to recognize the variability in wind, and to quantify the risk in wind power commitment during system operation. Complex methods that require significant amount of data are not readily applied in practical application. This paper presents a generalized and approximate risk based method that is relatively simple to apply, and therefore, should be useful to power system operators and wind farm owners to commit an appropriate amount of power in the next hour(s) based on the known initial wind power output.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable EnergySame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207