MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330358177 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2016.2542824

Interfacing Power System and ICT Simulators: Challenges, State-of-the-Art, and Case Studies

2016· article· en· W2330358177 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 Smart Grid · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCarleton UniversityOpal-Rt Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyInterfacingComputer scienceInterdependenceSynchronization (alternating current)Smart gridState (computer science)Event (particle physics)Interface (matter)Electric power systemSet (abstract data type)Systems engineeringPower (physics)TelecommunicationsEngineeringElectrical engineeringWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the transition toward a smart grid, the power system has become strongly intertwined with the information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. The interdependency of both domains requires a combined analysis of physical and ICT processes, but simulating these together is a major challenge due to the fundamentally different modeling and simulation concepts. After outlining these challenges, such as time synchronization and event handling, this paper presents an overview of state-of-the-art solutions to interface power system and ICT simulators. Due to their prominence in recent research, a special focus is set on co-simulation approaches and their challenges and potentials. Further, two case studies analyzing the impact of ICT on applications in power system operation illustrate the necessity of a holistic approach and show the capabilities of state-of-the-art co-simulation platforms.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · 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