MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158458616 · doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1709098

Incorporating dynamic security into market dispatch using accurate transient stability constraints

2006· article· en· W2158458616 on OpenAlexafffund
A. G. Buddhika P. Jayasekara, U.D. Annakkage

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsComputer scienceTransient (computer programming)Constraint (computer-aided design)Electric power systemMathematical optimizationStability (learning theory)Electricity marketLinear programmingComputationKey (lock)Control theory (sociology)ElectricityPower (physics)AlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes the inclusion of transient stability constraints in generation dispatch algorithms used in electricity markets to ensure dynamic security. The proposed security constraint is derived by applying a non-linear surface fitting technique to a database generated off-line. The technique used has two key features that enables very fast computation of an accurate transient stability constraint. One feature is that it uses a linear estimation technique to estimate a non-linear function by means of a non-linear transformation. The second important feature is that it employs an implicit technique to gain significant reduction in computing burden. The security constraints derived for each credible contingency can be used in an optimal power flow program for market clearance. The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method is demonstrated using the New England 39 bus system and a larger power system with 470 buses

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General MeetingSame topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207