MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110787312 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2005.857011

Unit Commitment With Primary Frequency Regulation Constraints

2005· article· en· W2110787312 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 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFrequency Control in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower system simulationScheduling (production processes)Frequency regulationAutomatic frequency controlContingencyControl theory (sociology)Unit (ring theory)Electric power systemComputer scienceMathematical optimizationOperations researchEngineeringOperations managementPower (physics)MathematicsControl (management)TelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unit commitment problem with tertiary reserve requirements has been broadly studied. Such reserves, when needed, are centrally deployed with relatively slow time constants of the order of minutes. In contrast, the scheduling of units offering primary frequency regulation reserve deployable in a decentralized manner within seconds of a contingency has received relatively little attention. In this paper, we formulate and solve a multiperiod unit commitment that simultaneously accounts for both primary and tertiary reserve constraints. What makes this scheduling problem particularly challenging is the characteristic that primary frequency regulation reserves have a common single degree of freedom, namely, the system frequency deviation.

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 score0.989
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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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