MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929089835 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2019.2903555

Optimal Planning With Technology Selection for Wind Power Plants in Power Distribution Networks

2019· article· en· W2929089835 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 Systems Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime horizonWind powerSelection (genetic algorithm)EngineeringNet present valueOperations researchPlan (archaeology)Site selectionInvestment (military)Electric power systemMathematical optimizationWork (physics)Power (physics)Computer scienceProduction (economics)EconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a comprehensive decision framework to optimally plan wind power plants (WPPs) with technology selection in the distribution network. The proposed framework aims to maximize the net present value (NPV) associated with the WPP investment over a given planning horizon for various bus locations. The proposed design accounts for various practical cost factors, historical data of wind speeds, and WPP installation restrictions due to territorial information, environmental considerations, and work constraints, in the decision making process of optimal planning and technology selection for WPP. The planning problem, which maximizes the NPV over the potential WPP installation locations, potential technologies, and the size of WPPs, is formulated as a constrained optimization problem. The proposed design is evaluated using case studies to test its concrete practices with a radial network of 33-bus distribution system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
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