MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037982552 · doi:10.1109/59.852155

State extension for adequacy evaluation of composite power systems-applications

2000· article· en· W2037982552 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 Power Systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric power systemExtension (predicate logic)State (computer science)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputationComputer scienceTransmission systemExtension methodMathematical optimizationPower (physics)AlgorithmMathematicsTransmission (telecommunications)EngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not feasible or even possible to investigate all the possible system states of a large practical composite generation and transmission system, as the number of the system states can be extremely large. The probabilities of the normally uninvestigated high level system outage states are individually very small, but the total value can be significant to the large number of these states. The state extension algorithm can efficiently extend the knowledge of the investigated system states to collectively include the effects of a large number of the uninvestigated system states. The accuracy of the adequacy indices, when using the state extension technique, is therefore improved without investigating the high level system states individually, which requires very large computation times. This paper illustrates the effectiveness of the state extension algorithm by application to two reliability test systems, the RBTS and the IEEE-RTS.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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