MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115206850 · doi:10.1109/pess.2000.867359

Towards a systematic procedure to design robust power system stabilizers

2002· article· en· W2115206850 on OpenAlexaff
Aimé Francis Okou, Matei Kelemen, Louis‐A. Dessaint, Ouassima Akhrif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)Electric power systemComputer scienceControl engineeringRobust controlDesign methodsPower (physics)Power networkEngineeringControl systemControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A linear robust method to design power system stabilizers for multimachine power systems is presented. The method is of quantitative feedback theory type. The robustness of the system is tested both for short circuit disturbances and for abrupt and permanent changes in the load parameter of the multimachine power network. The results are compared in simulation with a standard design from the literature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207