Assessment of customer supply reliability in performance-based contracts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of performance-based contracts between customers (end-users of electricity) and transmission system providers is expected to grow when the electricity market opens up to competition and for customer choice. In these contracts, specified levels of supply reliability with regard to service continuity and power quality will be specified and rewards for honoring these performance levels may be awarded and penalties may be imposed for failing to honor them. These rewards and penalties will be clearly spelled out in the contracts. Transmission system providers may have to assess in advance the level of supply reliability to customers before entering into any of these agreements in order to minimize the financial risk associated with these contracts. This paper describes a probabilistic method for evaluating the level of supply reliability to a customer entering into a performance-based contract with a transmission provider. The evaluation process includes performance measures that reflect both reliability and quality of power supply to the customer. The proposed method can be used not only to assess various utility solutions for improving the reliability and power quality to the customer but also to link the level of supply reliability to the cost of service. An example is given to illustrate the concepts involved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it