MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155246104 · doi:10.1109/pess.2001.970334

A customer value-added reliability approach to transmission system reinforcement planning

2001· article· en· W2155246104 on OpenAlexaffabout
A.A. Chowdbury, D.O. Koval

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceDeregulationReinforcement learningElectricity marketTransmission systemElectric power systemInvestment (military)ElectricityService (business)Transmission (telecommunications)Risk analysis (engineering)Power (physics)EngineeringBusinessTelecommunicationsEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As customers increasingly demand lower rates and higher reliability in the new competitive market, the challenging task of any electric utility is to minimize the capital investments and operation and maintenance expenditures to hold down electricity rates. If however, the cost is cut too far, it may jeopardize the system's ability to supply reliable power to its customers. The movement towards deregulation will therefore introduce a wide range of reliability issues that will require system reliability criteria and models that can incorporate the residual risks and uncertainties associated with transmission system planning and operating. Customer responsive value-based reliability techniques offer a rational response to emerging conflicting new requirements. This paper presents a customer value-added transmission system expansion and investment technique developed to satisfy ever-increasing customer demands of lower rates and higher service reliability in the competitive market. The developed technique has been applied to a real transmission network reinforcement problem of the Alberta Interconnected System.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207