MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109665095 · doi:10.1109/pes.2004.1372938

An investigation on the reactive power support service needs of power producers

2004· article· en· W2109665095 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanning Wang, Wilsun Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPower Systems and Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAC powerGenerator (circuit theory)Computer sciencePower (physics)Electric power systemCompensation (psychology)Service (business)Profit (economics)Electrical engineeringReliability engineeringEngineeringBusinessVoltageEconomicsMarketingMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactive power is an important system support service in the current power market. Power producers or generators have the opportunity to offer this service to make a profit. Given the fact that a generator needs reactive power to transmit its own active power, however, it is possible that certain generators cannot support system even if they are generating reactive power. This paper investigates such a phenomenon and proposes a method to determine the minimum amount of reactive power (Qmin) required for a given generator. If a generator cannot supply this minimum amount, it actually draws reactive power support from the system to facilitate its own active power selling activity. Compensation to a generator's reactive power output should be made only to the amount that is above the Qmin amount. The proposed ideas are illustrated with simple systems in this paper and tested on a real-life power system. The test results verified the validity of the proposed concept and method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004.Same topicPower Systems and Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207