Disco Operation Considering DG Units and Their Goodness Factors
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
This paper presents a new paradigm for distribution system operation in the presence of distributed generation (DG) sources taking into consideration the goodness factor of the DG units. The proposed concept of goodness factor of DG units is based on the computation of the incremental contribution of a DG unit to distribution system losses. The incremental contributions of a DG unit to active and reactive power losses in the distribution system are termed as the active/reactive incremental loss indices (ILI). The goodness factors are integrated directly into the distribution system operations model, which is based on an optimal power flow (OPF) framework. This model seeks to minimize the distribution company's (disco's) energy costs in the short term taking into account the contribution (goodness factor) of each DG unit. Two scenarios are considered in the paper: the first scenario considers the disco to be the owner of the DG units and hence is responsible for their scheduling and dispatch, and the second scenario considers the DG units to be investor-owned. The analysis was carried out considering an 18-bus distribution network extracted from the well-known IEEE 30-bus system and a 69-bus distribution 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 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 | 0.000 | 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