MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765000871 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2006.888986

Formulation of Oligopolistic Competition in AC Power Networks: An NLP Approach

2007· article· en· W2765000871 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligopolyNode (physics)Competition (biology)Electric power systemComputer scienceOperator (biology)Set (abstract data type)Market powerAC powerNonlinear systemMathematical optimizationPower (physics)VoltageOperations researchEconomicsEngineeringMathematical economicsMathematicsMicroeconomicsCournot competitionElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, oligopolistic competition in a centralized power market is characterized by a multi-leader single-follower game, and formulated as a nonlinear programming (NLP) problem. An ac network is used to represent the transmission system and is modeled using rectangular coordinates. The follower is composed of a set of competitive suppliers, demands, and the system operator, while the leaders are the dominant suppliers. The ac approach allows one to capture the strategic behavior of suppliers regarding not only active but also reactive power. In addition, the impact of voltage and apparent power flow constraints can be analyzed. Different case studies are presented using a three-node system to highlight the features of the formulation. Results on a 14-node system are also presented

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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