MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032831889 · doi:10.1109/pes.2007.385582

Hydro-Qu补c's Economic and Technical Approach to Justify its Distribution Automation Program

2007· article· en· W2032831889 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems and Technologies
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationDistribution (mathematics)Reliability (semiconductor)Software deploymentComputer scienceProcess automation systemSystems engineeringEngineeringOperations researchEngineering managementSoftware engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes Hydro-Quebec's economic and technical approach for the justification of the automation of its distribution network. After defining Hydro-Quebec's vision of the distribution automation system, this paper will explain all the studies made by Hydro-Quebec to justify its project. These studies compare conventional methods to improve the network performance with distribution automation. Then it covers specifically reliability improvement to define the best deployment scheme of distribution automation. Finally the paper explains the different domains covered by the Distribution Automation business case.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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