MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142713059 · doi:10.1109/pesw.2000.850064

Generator contribution coefficients for pricing transmission services

2002· article· en· W2142713059 on OpenAlexaff
Christine H. Kirby, Md. Ashiqur Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venue2000 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37077) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerator (circuit theory)Electric power transmissionComputer scienceSlack busElectric power systemTransmission (telecommunications)TariffFlow (mathematics)Power flowTransmission lineTransmission systemPower-flow studyMathematical optimizationPower (physics)AC powerElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsVoltageEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the United States has acknowledged the shortcomings of the traditional contract path method as a mechanism for implementing transmission tariffs and has encouraged the development of alternate tariff schemes. This paper presents an alternate method for determining transmission facility usage by a generator. It outlines and discusses mathematical formulae for decomposing the total real power flow that is estimated to exist in a transmission facility. The decomposition produces numerical results that express a transmission line's total real power flow as the summation of the contributions made by each generator, thereby estimating each supplier's use of the system. The technique generalizes a linear expression that is derived from assumptions similar to those used in DC load flow analysis. Each expression is unique to the dispatch on the system at the time. The technique is applied to the AC power flow solution for a modified IEEE standard 14-bus system to evaluate its accuracy on loop feeds, radial feeds and for counter flows. Each generator's contribution to the line flow is totaled and compared to the original AC load flow solution to evaluate accuracy. The results are then applied to certain flow mile topics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2000 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37077)Same topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207