MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155383886 · doi:10.1109/icpst.2000.897115

Power system reliability enhancement using unified power flow controllers

2002· article· en· W2155383886 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnified power flow controllerReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Electric power systemComputer scienceTransmission systemElectric power transmissionFlexible AC transmission systemPower transmissionTransmission (telecommunications)Power flowPower (physics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major requirement in the application of FACTS devices in power systems is to develop techniques which enable system planners to manage with great confidence the uncertainty associated with these devices. This paper presents an approach to evaluate transmission system reliability when employing a unified power flow controller (UPFC). This paper provides a framework within which the risk associated with management and the development of the transmission network can be quantified. Reliability indices such as the loss of load probability (LOLP), loss of load expectation (LOLE), the loss of energy expectation (LOEE) and the system minutes (SM) are utilized to examine the impact of UPFC on the transmission system reliability. The technique is illustrated by application to a hypothetical 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.198
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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207