MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132757196 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1993.270562

Determination of the interruptible load carrying capability in a generation system

2002· article· en· W2132757196 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Shafai, L. Gan, D. John Morrow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsCapital Power (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceDuration (music)Probabilistic logicProcess (computing)Service (business)Load balancing (electrical power)Load managementElectric power systemOperations researchPower (physics)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringOperating systemMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generating system, consistent with its reliability criterion, is capable of serving a firm load for which it is built. In addition to the firm load, the same generating system is capable of supporting a limited amount of interruptible load. This capability is defined as the interruptible load carrying capability (ILCC) of that system. The additional load is served by the resources acquired to serve the firm load, without affecting the reliability of the firm load. The magnitude of ILCC for a given system increases with the reliability of the system, with increased duration of interruption and with the level of reliance that is placed on the emergency operating procedures. The authors present a probabilistic approach used to calculate the ILCC of the Alberta Interconnected System (AIS). These findings helped to determine the maximum level of interruptible load service that Alberta's electric utilities can offer their customers. The impact of various factors on ILCC is discussed and the process is illustrated with numerical results.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207