MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125135194 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2012.2213309

DG allocation for benefit maximization in distribution networks

2013· article· en· W2125135194 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributed generationRenewable energyInstallationMaximizationReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationUpgradeReduction (mathematics)Integer programmingPower (physics)EngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a method to evaluate the worth of installing renewable distributed generation (DG) in distribution networks. Moreover, the work optimally allocates these DG units in the distribution network to maximize the worth of the connection to the local distribution company (LDC), as well as the customers connected to the system. The proposed methodology helps the LDC to better assess the benefits of the renewable DG units' proposed connections and to identify the optimal buses on which to connect these DG units. The benefits considered in this paper are deferral of upgrade investments, reduction of the cost of energy losses, and reliability improvement, which is represented by the interruption cost reduction. The proposed methodology takes into consideration the uncertainty and variability associated with the output power of renewable DG as well as the load variability. The planning problem of determining the optimal location and sizes of DG units is defined as multi-objective mixed integer programming.

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 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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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