MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120835375 · doi:10.1109/pes.2007.385565

Investigation of Transmission Cost Allocation Using a Power Flow Tracing Method

2007· article· en· W2120835375 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 Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracingComputer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)Scheme (mathematics)Cost allocationPower flowMathematical optimizationPower (physics)Electric power systemTelecommunicationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present open access restructured power system market, it is necessary to develop an appropriate pricing scheme that can provide the useful economic information to market participants, such as generation, transmission companies and customers. However, accurately estimating and allocating the transmission cost in the transmission pricing scheme is a challenging task although many methods have been proposed. The objective of this paper is to introduce a simple transmission pricing scheme using a power flow tracing method, in which transmission service cost, congestion cost and loss cost are considered. Numerical example using a test power system is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the studied 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.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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