MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minimizing Distribution System Power Loss Using Behind-the-Meter Type 3 Generators

2019· article· en· W2955939480 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstallationRenewable energyDistributed generationParticle swarm optimizationMetreElectric power systemElectricity meterPower lossComputer scienceReduction (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationPower (physics)EngineeringAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers power loss reduction in distribution systems by integrating behind-the-meter, type 3 distributed generation (DG) sources. Power loss is estimated using the forward/backward sweep (FBS) method, and the loss reduction is maximized using particle swarm optimization (PSO). Power factor, and DG location and size are used as optimization parameters. The IEEE 33 bus distribution system and PSS SIN-CAL software are used to evaluate the proposed solution. Results presented show that for the same DG penetration in a distribution system, behind-the-meter, type 3 DG sources can significantly reduce power loss. Thus, utilities not only benefit from investment cost savings but also higher efficiency in their distribution systems. Therefore, utilities could give more subsidy to the customers to encourage installing DG sources in optimal locations. DG sources are typically renewable energy sources, so environmental concerns are also mitigated.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207