MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095998951 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2002.1015190

Application of wellbeing concepts in short term generating unit preventive maintenance scheduling

2003· article· en· W2095998951 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Saleh Abdulwhab, R. Billinton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnavailabilityPreventive maintenanceReliability engineeringScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceProbabilistic logicMaintenance engineeringElectric power systemEconomic shortagePower system simulationDependabilityOperations researchEngineeringPower (physics)Operations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preventive maintenance scheduling of generating units in a deregulated power system is usually conducted on a relatively short-term basis. In these systems, uncoordinated removal of generating equipment for maintenance can result in severe generation shortages. Short term preventive maintenance scheduling is therefore an important requirement in order to avoid excessive price increases and rotating load curtailments. There are a number of different approaches used for preventive maintenance scheduling. The most widely used techniques are deterministically based. Probabilistic approaches, however, have also been used for this purpose, A new methodology has been developed to combine a probabilistic approach and an acceptable deterministic criterion into a single framework. This methodology is designated as the health levelization. technique. The effect on maintenance scheduling of using the tune dependent unit unavailability instead of the forced outage rate (FOR) is illustrated in this paper. The consequences of incorporating load forecast uncertainty (LFU) in the maintenance scheduling process are also examined. The concepts presented are illustrated by application to two test systems: The IEEE Reliability Test System (IEEE-RTS) and the Roy Billinton Test System (RBTS).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207