MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146292227 · doi:10.1109/tec.2004.842376

Incorporating Well-Being Considerations in Generating Systems Using Energy Storage

2005· article· en· W2146292227 on OpenAlexaff
Bagen, R. Billinton

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringElectric power systemComputer scienceWind powerEnergy storageEngineeringPower (physics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing utilization of wind and solar energy for power supply in remote locations involves serious consideration of the reliability of these unconventional energy sources. Most utilities use deterministic criteria in the planning and design of these systems. The main disadvantage of deterministic criteria is that they do not recognize and reflect the inherent random nature of the site resources, the system behavior, and the customer demands etc. Probabilistic techniques can be used to overcome this drawback and incorporate the inherent uncertainty in these factors. Power system planners and designers sometimes experience difficulties in interpreting and using probabilistic reliability indices. This difficulty can be alleviated by incorporating deterministic considerations into a probabilistic evaluation using the well-being concept. A simulation technique is presented in this paper which extends the conventional well-being approach to generating systems using energy storage. The proposed technique is illustrated and applied in this paper to several small stand-alone power systems. The effects on the system well-being of some of the major system parameters and the deterministic criteria are illustrated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Energy ConversionSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207