MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343495502 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2015.2499264

Optimal ESS Allocation for Benefit Maximization in Distribution Networks

2015· article· en· W2343495502 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSizingProbabilistic logicMaximizationComputer scienceSmart gridReliability (semiconductor)Peaking power plantRenewable energyReliability engineeringMathematical optimizationOperations researchDistributed generationEngineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart grids have been emerging nowadays as an initiative to operate modern distribution systems in a more economic and efficient way. Energy storage systems (ESSs) are one of the promising technologies that can achieve the goals of smart grids via facilitating the connection of renewable sources, improving system reliability, and controlling the net demand through peak load shaving, etc. In this paper, a comprehensive planning framework is introduced for ascertaining the most cost effective siting and sizing of ESSs that maximize their benefits in distribution networks. A probabilistic approach is further adopted that includes the consideration of the stochastic nature of system components. Such approach allows determining the optimal operation of ESS at each load state. Moreover, contingency planning decisions, in the form of load points to be shed during contingencies, are identified through the approach proposed.

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 score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

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 spread0.210 · 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