MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255893130 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0162

Reliability benefit of energy storage in wind integrated power system operation

2015· article· en· W2255893130 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

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Wind powerEnergy storageElectric power systemComputer sciencePower (physics)Automotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variability of wind power is one of the main concerns of power system operation with significant wind power. Energy storage can be employed in conjunction with wind power to reduce the uncertainty associated with wind power. This study assumes the storage facility being operated by the wind farm operator for the explicit purpose of minimising the risk of wind power commitment. A time‐dependent wind power model is developed in conjunction with the energy storage model for short operating lead times that are conditional on the initial wind and storage conditions. This study presents a probabilistic method to assess the reliability contribution of energy storage using two probabilistic indices: the wind power commitment risk and the unit commitment risk.

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)0.001
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 score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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