MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315188543 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0462

Power factor‐based scheduling of distributed battery energy storage units optimally allocated in bulk power systems for mitigating marginal losses

2016· article· en· W2315188543 on OpenAlex
Ali Moeini, Innocent Kamwa, Martin De Montigny

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsReliability engineeringEnergy storageScheduleMathematical optimizationScheduling (production processes)Power (physics)Computer sciencePareto principleReliability (semiconductor)EngineeringMathematicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the problem of multi‐objective optimal allocation and management of multiple battery energy storage (BES) units. The multi‐objective genetic algorithm is first used to find the so‐called Pareto front while minimisation of power losses and the total installed capacity of the BES units are simultaneous objective functions. A number of solutions are chosen and developed over one year to find the best schedule for BES utilisation taking into account the power factor (PF) of the charge and discharge modes. Results of studies on the IEEE reliability test system 1996 confirm the existence of an optimal solution for loss reduction. Optimal tuning of the charge and discharge PFs has also proven effective for marginal loss reduction and saving energy every day of the year. Finally, it is shown that the power loss would decrease, even during charge hours, if PFs of BESs are optimally tuned.

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 score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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