MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122590115 · doi:10.1109/iciinfs.2007.4579239

Ensuring power system security against contingencies

2007· article· en· W2122590115 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)University of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingencyElectric power systemComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Power (physics)Stability (learning theory)Reliability engineeringState (computer science)Computer securityRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMathematicsBusinessMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A power system is secure against a given contingency if it operates within acceptable operating limits before and after the occurrence of the contingency. In practice, it is not possible to secure a power system against all possible contingencies. Therefore, only the most critical contingencies (imminent disturbances) are considered. The paper gives an overview of power system security and different ways of loosing stability. Then, a statistical learning based technique for determining the boundary of the secure operating region in terms of pre-contingent state of the power system is reviewed. The paper discusses possible applications of the boundary and some issues related to practical application of this 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207