MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017116792 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2014.2348531

Load Modeling For Power System Requirement and Capability Assessment

2014· article· en· W2017116792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchGrainger Foundation
KeywordsElectric power systemComputationComputer sciencePower (physics)Reliability engineeringControl engineeringPower-flow studyMathematical optimizationEngineeringAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Load modeling is essential for designing and operating power systems. This paper presents an approach for load modeling on smaller power systems that could be “islanded,” an approach that preserves the detail of a full differential equation simulation of relevant loads while requiring far less computation by employing behavioral models of important loads. Mixed domain models, e.g., stochastic, finite-state machine, and differential equation models, are employed to provide accuracy in a computationally tractable framework. Where simple load models may not be adequate, particularly for generation-constrained systems (in a paper by Sotiropoulos et al.), and full models are computationally unfavorable, this approach provides excellent results that enable “what-if” studies and flexible re-evaluation during power system design and operational assessment. Naval vessels, particularly warships with relatively large and increasing load power requirements, offer a unique laboratory for understanding isolated power grids. This paper examines the DDG-51 power distribution system as an example.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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