MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764750480 · doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1708890

Unit commitment with primary frequency regulation constraints

2006· article· en· W2764750480 on OpenAlexaff
José Restrepo, F.D. Galiana

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagnetic Bearings and Levitation Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Power system simulationContingencyUnit (ring theory)Frequency regulationAutomatic frequency controlComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsControl (management)Electric power systemTelecommunicationsPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. The unit commitment problem with tertiary reserve requirements has been broadly studied. Such reserves, when needed, are centrally deployed with relatively slow time constants of the order of minutes. In contrast, the scheduling of units offering primary frequency regulation reserve deployable in a decentralized manner within seconds of a contingency has received relatively little attention. In this paper, we formulate and solve a multiperiod unit commitment that simultaneously accounts for both primary and tertiary reserve constraints. What makes this scheduling problem particularly challenging is the characteristic that primary frequency regulation reserves have a common single degree of freedom, namely, the system frequency deviation

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2650.050

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General MeetingSame topicMagnetic Bearings and Levitation DynamicsFrench-language works237,207