MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017772010 · doi:10.1109/pesgm.2012.6344634

Experiences and challenges in contingency analysis at Hydro-Quebec

2012· article· en· W2017772010 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersConcordia UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsContingencyComputer scienceSecurity analysisContingency planComputer securityLine (geometry)SoftwareOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contingency analysis is one of the major components in power system security analysis. Hydro-Quebec has a long interest in on-line real-time security based monitoring system. As early as 1982, the first operational tool to provide dynamic transfer limits was put in real-time operation in the control center. Over several decades, more sophisticated and complicated tables were integrated into the system called LIMSEL. In 1989, the on-line network security analysis software known as LASER was put in service. This software includes a state estimator and on-line post-contingency analysis. This paper briefly describes the experiences of contingency analysis in both on-line and off-line aspects at Hydro-Quebec. Challenges and improvements arising from the practice of contingency analysis are also discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207