MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138170029 · doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1709366

Probabilistic reliability evaluation for interconnecting the power systems in North East Asia

2006· article· en· W2138170029 on OpenAlexaff
Jaeseok Choi, Thanh Toan Tran, Jong-Hee Kwon, D.W. Park, Jae-Young Yoon, S.I. Moon, Junmin Cha, R. Billinton

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)InterconnectionReliability engineeringProbabilistic logicEast AsiaComputer scienceGenerator (circuit theory)Line (geometry)Electric power systemPower (physics)Tie lineEngineeringTelecommunicationsGeographyChinaMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper illustrates the case studies of reliability evaluation for interconnecting power systems in the north east Asia by using the tie line constrained equivalent assisting generator model (TEAG), which has been already developed in the second project year. A reliability evaluation program, it is named, NEAREL, based on the TEAG model was made. The reliability evaluation results for the seven interconnection scenarios of the actual power systems of six countries in the north east Asia are introduced and compared. The reasonable capacity of the tie line for three countries interconnection scenario is suggested from sensitivity analysis

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General MeetingSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207