Impact of utilising sequential and nonsequential simulation techniques in bulk-electric-system reliability assessment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper illustrates the impact of using two fundamentally different Monte Carlo simulation techniques to predict interruption-frequency indexes of bulk electric power systems. The two Monte Carlo simulation techniques designated as the sequential (state-duration sampling) and nonsequential (state sampling) methods are utilised. Two test systems designated as the Roy Billinton test system (RBTS) and the IEEE-reliability test system (IEEE-RTS) are used, and the results with respect to annualised and annual reliability indexes obtained using both techniques are demonstrated. The impacts of failure state transitions and chronology on frequency-index calculations are investigated and discussed. The results show that the approximate frequency index obtained using the nonsequential technique could provide either a high estimate or a low estimate of the more accurate frequency indexes obtained using the sequential technique, depending on the factors included in the calculation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it