MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139791123 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2008.925941

Equivalency of Continuation and Optimization Methods to Determine Saddle-Node and Limit-Induced Bifurcations in Power Systems

2009· article· en· W2139791123 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 Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBifurcationTransversalitySaddle-node bifurcationLimit (mathematics)Electric power systemControl theory (sociology)ContinuationMathematicsApplied mathematicsLimit cycleSimple (philosophy)Stability (learning theory)Mathematical optimizationComputer sciencePower (physics)Mathematical analysisPhysicsNonlinear systemControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comprehensive and detailed study of an optimization-based approach to identify and analyze saddle-node bifurcations (SNBs) and limit-induced bifurcations (LIBs) of a power system model, which are known to be directly associated with voltage stability problems in these systems. Theoretical studies are presented, formally demonstrating that solution points obtained from an optimization model, which is based on complementarity constraints used to properly represent generators' voltage controls, correspond to either SNB or LIB points of this model. These studies are accomplished by proving that optimality conditions of these solution points yield the transversality conditions of the corresponding bifurcation points. A simple but realistic test system is used to numerically illustrate the theoretical discussions.

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 score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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