MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344531617 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2015.2505185

Computation of Maximum Loading Points via the Factored Load Flow

2015· article· en· W2344531617 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Catalina Gómez‐Quiles, Antonio Gómez‐Expósito, Walter Vargas

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEscuela Superior Politécnica del LitoralMcGill University
KeywordsComputationRobustness (evolution)Power flowContinuationElectric power systemBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationExploitComputer scienceBisection methodMaximum flow problemAlgorithmFlow (mathematics)Power (physics)Control theory (sociology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a fast and straightforward algorithm to obtain the maximum loading points of power systems by simply performing bisection searches between feasible and infeasible load flow cases. The proposed method exploits the ability and robustness of the factored load flow solution procedure to converge to complex solutions well beyond the maximum loadability points. Test cases on a diversity of benchmark cases show that the new method is computationally attractive when compared with existing continuation power flow methods.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207