MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156693165 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2013-0370

Role of hydrologic information in stochastic dynamic programming: a case study of the Kemano hydropower system in British Columbia

2014· article· en· W2156693165 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Quentin Desreumaux, Pascal Côté, Robert Leconte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsRio Tinto (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydropowerStochastic programmingStreamflowSnowEnvironmental scienceAutoregressive modelHydrology (agriculture)Hydrological modellingHydroelectricityVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceDynamic programmingMeteorologyOperations researchDrainage basinClimatologyStatisticsMathematicsMathematical optimizationGeographyEngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study describing the effect of various hydrological variables in stochastic dynamic programming (SDP) for solving the optimization problem of managing a hydropower system. We will show how choosing the best hydrological variables can strongly affect management policies. This is especially true for the system studied here, namely the Kemano hydroelectric system located in British Columbia, Canada, which is subject to large streamflow volumes due to significant snow cover during winter. Real-time snow water equivalent (SWE) data can be used directly as a variable in SDP management policies. Results indicate that for the system in this study, the maximum SWE (i.e., highest level of SWE observed from the start of winter to the current decision period) is the best among the methods investigated for effective, safe management, compared with Markov or order p autoregressive models when forecasts are not available.

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 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 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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.143
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207