MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345208503 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2016.2524654

Automated Review of Distance Relay Settings Adequacy After the Network Topology Changes

2016· article· en· W2345208503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Tasdighi, Mladen Kezunović

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHigh Performance Research Computing, Texas A and M UniversityAdvanced Research Projects Agency - EnergyDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRelayNetwork topologyTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceProtective relayComputer networkElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A challenge raised in today's power system is assessing the system protection security and dependability after the topology has been changed due to relay operation upon the occurrence of cascading faults or intentional operator switching action. This paper proposes an automated setting calculation module which could be used to review the adequacy of the distance relay settings following network topology changes. The calculation procedure is broken down into blocks which could be processed in parallel in order to improve the computation speed. A new concept called distance of impact is proposed to reduce the computational burden by conducting the calculations on a limited portion of the network affected by the topology change. The module performance is tested on a synthetic IEEE 118-bus and real-life Alberta transmission operator systems. A sensitivity analysis in the form of N-2 contingency impact on the network relay settings coordination is conducted on the test systems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207