MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027307583 · doi:10.1109/tii.2013.2258930

A Survey of Networking Challenges and Routing Protocols in Smart Grids

2013· article· en· W2027307583 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 Industrial Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridReliability (semiconductor)Computer networkRouting protocolRouting (electronic design automation)Policy-based routingKey (lock)Distributed computingGridLink-state routing protocolPower (physics)EngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart grids (SG) represent the next step in modernizing the current electric grid. In this structure, a communications network is combined with the power grid in order to gather information that can be used to increase the efficiency of the grid, reduce power consumption, and improve the reliability of services, among other numerous advantages. SG communication networks are unique in their large scale and the limited capabilities of nodes which present several challenges in the design of efficient routing protocols. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the main networking challenges present in the design of SG communication networks, and some of the important routing protocols proposed to address those challenges. Various technologies and architectures proposed for routing in SGs are discussed. A detailed comparison of the protocols considered in this paper is also given, and key areas that require further investigation are highlighted.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.175 · 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