MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019841235 · doi:10.1109/epec.2010.5697200

Fixed-head hydro-thermal scheduling using a modified bacterial foraging algorithm

2010· article· en· W2019841235 on OpenAlexaff
I. A. Farhat, M.E. El-Hawary

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingDimension (graph theory)Nonlinear systemOptimization problemConvergence (economics)AlgorithmMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the short-term hydro-thermal scheduling problem is solved using a modified bacterial foraging algorithm (MBFA). The integrated hydro-thermal systems considered include fixed-head hydro reservoirs. The short-term hydro-thermal scheduling (STHTS) problem is a dynamic large-scale nonlinear optimization problem which requires solving unit commitment and economic power load dispatch problems. The bacterial foraging algorithm (BFA) is a recently developed evolutionary optimization technique based on the foraging behavior of the E. coli bacteria. The BFA has been successfully employed to solve various optimization problems; however, for large-scale problems such as this problem, it shows poor convergence properties. To overcome this problem considering its high-dimension search space, critical modifications are introduced to the basic BFA. The algorithm presented is validated using two fixed-head test systems. Results show that the proposed algorithm is capable of solving the problem with good performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207