MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061948033 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2012.2214447

Probabilistic Power Flow by Monte Carlo Simulation With Latin Supercube Sampling

2013· article· en· W2061948033 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin hypercube samplingMonte Carlo methodSlice samplingBinSampling (signal processing)Probabilistic logicComputer scienceHistogramRejection samplingSimple random sampleMonte Carlo integrationImportance samplingRandom variableAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsHybrid Monte CarloStatisticsMarkov chain Monte CarloArtificial intelligenceDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a Latin supercube sampling (LSS) combined with Monte Carlo simulation is presented to efficiently sample random variables in the probabilistic power flow (PPF) problem. The results of the LSS method are compared with other techniques, namely Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) and simple random sampling (SRS), using bin-by-bin histogram comparison. The simulation results are presented for the case of IEEE 118-bus test system.

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 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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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