MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166154009 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2008.926401

Determination of Network Rental Components in a Competitive Electricity Market

2008· article· en· W2166154009 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 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRentingTracingElectricity marketRevenueMathematical optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)ElectricityElectric power transmissionEconomic surplusEconomicsComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The locational marginal pricing (LMP)-based settlement results in a surplus collected by the system operator from the consumers. The nonlinear transmission losses and the constrained operation of the power system due to operating limits, such as power flow limits on transmission lines, cause the accumulation of this surplus. This accumulated revenue, referred to as the network rental in this paper, has two main components: loss rental and constraint rental. This paper develops a method to calculate these different rental components paid by each consumer, by combining the power flow tracing and KKT optimality conditions. This yields quantitative determination of how each consumer has overpaid in the form of loss rental and constraint rental, which in turn can be used to get a better insight of how the rental is accumulated. Simple three- and four-bus systems are used to demonstrate the proposed method.

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 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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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