MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165572240 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2008.4564715

Bidding wind power in short-term electricity market based on multiple-objective fuzzy optimization

2008· article· en· W2165572240 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings - Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingTerm (time)Electricity marketWind powerFuzzy logicElectricityComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMicroeconomicsMathematicsEconomicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind energy is promising with no fuel cost and zero greenhouse gas emissions; however, its intermittent and volatile nature has added much to operation burdens and thus a low penetration level in short-term or spot market. On the one hand, the power system operator is facing increased spinning reserve and generation uncertainty; on the other hand, the wind independent power producer (IPP) is subject to imbalance penalties in the balancing market. Previous literatures solely focused on maximizing the profit for a wind IPP formulating optimal bidding strategies without the consideration of operator side. This paper proposes a multiple-objective optimal bidding strategy to achieve both wind IPP’s maximum profit and less challenge for the operator. The strategy is formulated as a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem with fuzzy optimization techniques. Analytic and numerical solutions will be given with discussion on risk control.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.175 · 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