MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023410627 · doi:10.1002/eej.20485

A distributed autonomous approach for bulk power system restoration by means of multi‐agent system

2008· article· en· W2023410627 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrical Engineering in Japan · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutElectric power systemOrder (exchange)Computer scienceDistributed computingPower (physics)Agent-based modelReliability engineeringEngineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligenceBusinessPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years, the electric utility industry worldwide has been facing pressure to be deregulated. Also, the risk of blackout in large areas will increase. Actually, it is still vivid in our memory that the northeastern United States and southern Canada suffered the worst blackout in history. Consequently, a method to find the optimal solution rapidly is needed all the more. In this paper, we propose a new multi‐agent method for a bulk power system restoration. In order to demonstrate the capability of the proposed multi‐agent system, it has been applied to a model bulk power system, which consists of three local areas including 12 generating units and 12 loads, and three remote areas with 12 loads. A large number of simulations are carried out on this model network with changing conditions. The simulation results show that the proposed multi‐agent approach is effective and promising. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Electr Eng Jpn, 164(1): 69–76, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience ( www.interscience.wiley.com ). DOI 10.1002/eej.20485

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 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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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