MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057093945 · doi:10.1109/epec.2011.6070195

Simulation of large-scale electrical power networks on graphics processing units

2011· article· en· W2057093945 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphics processing unitCentral processing unitGraphicsGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsParallel computingCUDAParallel processingComputational scienceComputer hardwareComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper suitability of applying graphics processing unit (GPU) based computing for electromagnetic transient (EMT) simulation of large scale power systems is demonstrated. As the network size increases there is a corresponding increase in simulation time with conventional central processing unit (CPU) based simulation tools. The paper shows that with a hybrid environment consisting of CPUs and GPUs, simulation time is much less compared to the CPU-only implementations. In this scheme the GPU is mainly used to do the computationally intensive part of the simulation in parallel on its built-in multiple processing cores, and the CPU is assigned for updating history terms and flow control of the simulation. The GPU-based approach is used to simulate a network with 117 nodes, and it is shown that the CPU-GPU based implementation takes less than half of the time taken by the CPU-only implementation of the simulation.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207