MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164802766 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2004.831699

Optimal Investment Planning for Distributed Generation in a Competitive Electricity Market

2004· article· en· W2164802766 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity marketInvestment (military)SizingElectricityDistributed generationCapacity planningHeuristicCompensation (psychology)Operations researchComputer scienceMathematical optimizationBusinessMicroeconomicsEconomicsEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new heuristic approach for distributed generation (DG) capacity investment planning from the perspective of a distribution company (disco). Optimal sizing and siting decisions for DG capacity is obtained through a cost-benefit analysis approach based on a new optimization model. The model aims to minimize the disco's investment and operating costs as well as payment toward loss compensation. Bus-wise cost-benefit analysis is carried out on an hourly basis for different forecasted peak demand and market price scenarios. This approach arrives at the optimal feasible DG capacity investment plan under competitive electricity market auction as well as fixed bilateral contract scenarios. The proposed heuristic method helps alleviate the use of binary variables in the optimization model thus easing the computational burden substantially.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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