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 OpenAlexaff
Walid El‐Khattam, Kankar Bhattacharya, Y. G. Hegazy, M.M.A. Salama

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.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.013
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

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

Citations528
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207