MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081036449 · doi:10.1109/mpe.2014.2301514

Powering Through the Storm: Microgrids Operation for More Efficient Disaster Recovery

2014· article· en· W2081036449 on OpenAlexaff
Chad Abbey, David Cornforth, Nikos Hatziargyriou, Keiichi Hirose, Alexis Kwasinski, Elias Kyriakides, Glenn Platt, Lorenzo Reyes-Chamorro, Siddharth Suryanarayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power and Energy Magazine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMicrogridDisaster recoveryElectricityNatural disasterMains electricityStormCompromiseEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental economicsComputer scienceBusinessRenewable energyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disasters, whether natural or man-made, compromise the quality of life for all involved. In such situations, expeditious recovery activities are deemed imperative and irreplaceable for the restoration of normalcy. However, recovery activities rely heavily on the critical infrastructures that supply basic needs like electricity, water, information, and transportation. When disasters strike, it is likely that the critical infrastructures themselves are affected significantly, hampering efficient recovery processes, thus presenting a Catch-22 conundrum. In this article, we present examples from different parts of the world where distributed energy resources, organized in a microgrid, were used to provide reliable electricity supply in the wake of disasters, allowing recovery and rebuilding efforts to occur with relatively greater efficiency.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations137
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power and Energy MagazineSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207