MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132745496 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2016485

Unit Commitment Risk Analysis of Wind Integrated Power Systems

2009· article· en· W2132745496 on OpenAlexaff
R. Billinton, B. Karki, Rajesh Karki

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerPower system simulationElectric power systemReliability engineeringPower (physics)Wind speedEngineeringAutomotive engineeringNameplate capacityBase load power plantElectricity generationComputer scienceOperations researchControl theory (sociology)Electrical engineeringMeteorologyControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utilization of wind power generation is increasing throughout the world and it is therefore important that these facilities be integrated in the existing generating capacity planning and operating protocols and procedures. This paper presents an approach to evaluate the contribution that wind power can make to the load carrying capability of a power generating system in an operating scenario. The basic concepts of unit commitment risk analysis are extended to include the inherent variability associated with wind power by developing short-term probability distributions of the wind speed and wind power output using auto-regressive moving average (ARMA) time series models. The operating capacity contributions attributable to wind power are illustrated by application to a small test system and are expressed in terms of the increased load carrying capability due to the wind power generating facilities.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations97
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207