MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885687103 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2865592

Optimized Data Acquisition Point Placement for an Advanced Metering Infrastructure Based on Power Line Communication Technology

2018· article· en· W2885687103 on OpenAlexafffund
Fariba Aalamifar, Lutz Lampe

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSmart gridMetering modePower-line communicationComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)TransformerGridTelecommunications networkLatency (audio)Distributed computingComputer networkReal-time computingTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Electrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different communication technologies have been suggested for developing the smart grid communication network. Among these communication technologies, power line communication (PLC) has widely been used, as it has a large coverage range and can access remote areas using existing infrastructures. In this paper, we derive a mathematical model for devising an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) in the distribution grid based on PLC technology. In order to collect the traffic from thousands of smart meters, intermediary data collectors are placed on selected distribution transformers. However, an optimized placement of data collectors is necessary in order to meet the strict latency requirements needed for time-critical traffic from the meters. For this, we first formulate the latency based on the medium access characteristics of the powerline intelligent metering evolution standard. We then propose an optimization platform for efficiently placing data collectors in such a way that the reliability requirement for the smart grid traffic is ensured and also the installation cost is minimized. We apply the devised optimization solution to realistic examples of AMIs, and we show the effectiveness of our approach through numerical performance evaluation.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207