MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955540607 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2019.2926410

Short-Circuit Constrained Power System Expansion Planning Considering Bundling and Voltage Levels of Lines

2019· article· en· W2955540607 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Esmaili, Mohammad Ghamsari‐Yazdel, Nima Amjady, Antonio J. Conejo

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinearizationElectric power transmissionElectric power systemTime horizonVoltageMathematical optimizationTransmission lineControl theory (sociology)Representation (politics)Integer (computer science)EngineeringNonlinear systemInteger programmingPower (physics)Computer scienceElectrical engineeringMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

System expansion planning (SEP) models do not generally represent voltage levels, bundled conductors in transmission lines, and short-circuit limits. These modeling assumptions may result in suboptimal planning outcomes. To overcome this potential flaw, we propose a short-circuit constrained dynamic SEP (SC-SEP) that allows for investment decisions at different stages of the planning horizon and includes a detailed representation of voltage levels, alternative bundled conductor options per line and short-circuit limits. An effective linearization technique is used to transform the resulting mixed-integer nonlinear model into a mixed-integer linear one. The accuracy of the proposed model and the effectiveness of the proposed linearization technique are illustrated using the IEEE 39-bus 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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207