MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030343799 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2011.2177103

A Water-Filling Based Scheduling Algorithm for the Smart Grid

2012· article· en· W2030343799 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 Smart Grid · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Smart gridGridDistributed computingComputationDemand responsePower consumptionFair-share schedulingReal-time computingElectricityMathematical optimizationComputer networkPower (physics)AlgorithmEngineeringQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The processing and communication capabilities of the smart grid provide a solid foundation for enhancing its efficiency and reliability. These capabilities allow utility companies to adjust their offerings in a way that encourages consumers to reduce their peak hour consumption, resulting in a more efficient system. In this paper, we propose a method for scheduling a community's power consumption such that it becomes almost flat. Our methodology utilizes distributed schedulers that allocate time slots to soft loads probabilistically based on precalculated and predistributed demand forecast information. This approach requires no communication or coordination between scheduling nodes. Furthermore, the computation performed at each scheduling node is minimal. Obtaining a relatively constant consumption makes it possible to have a relatively constant billing rate and eliminates operational inefficiencies. We also analyze the fairness of our proposed approach, the effect of the possible errors in the demand forecast, and the participation incentives for consumers.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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