MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171659837 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2004.829091

Optimization of Electrical Distribution Feeders Using Simulated Annealing

2004· article· en· W2171659837 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 Delivery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingMathematical optimizationPower flowElectric powerPower lossHeuristicElectrical networkElectric power systemPower (physics)Computer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The planning of electrical power distribution systems strongly influences the supply of electrical power to consumers. The problem is to minimize both the investment cost for feeder and substations, and the power-loss cost. When the substations can already provide enough power flow, then the problem reduces to minimize the total cost related to the feeders and their power-loss. The difficulty of dealing with this problem increases rapidly with its size (i.e., the number of customers). It seems appropriate to use heuristic methods to obtain suboptimal solutions, since exact methods are too much time consuming. In this paper, a simulated annealing algorithm is used. A set of numerical results are provided.

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 score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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