MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737072496 · doi:10.1049/iet-rpg.2017.0392

Inertial response from wind power plants during a frequency disturbance on the Hydro‐Quebec system – event analysis and validation

2017· article· en· W2737072496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Asmine, Charles‐Éric Langlois, Noël Aubut

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Renewable Power Generation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceWind powerEvent (particle physics)Electric power systemInertial frame of referenceControl theory (sociology)Power (physics)Computer scienceEngineeringGeologyPhysicsElectrical engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better assess the contribution of wind power plants (WPPs) during disturbances, Hydro‐Québec TransÉnergie (HQT), the main transmission system operator in the Quebec Interconnection, uses on‐line monitoring to record data at the point of common coupling of each WPP. This data is used to analyse their performance during voltage and frequency disturbances. Until recently, very few WPPs were able to provide an inertial response (IR) for under‐frequency events. On 28 December 2015, a generation loss of 1700 MW caused a frequency nadir of 59.08 Hz on the system, to which most WPPs required to provide IR contributed significantly. The analysis of the event showed that the behaviour of the WPPs had a significant effect on the recovery of the system frequency. This study presents the performance analysis of WPPs during this under‐frequency event. The analysis is based on data collected from 25 large‐scale WPPs in operation and equipped with the IR feature as required by HQT. Field measurements and simulation results are used to emphasise the effect of the active power reduction during the recovery phase. Impacts of the IR from the WPPs as used on the Hydro‐Quebec system are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Renewable Power GenerationSame topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207