MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000512700 · doi:10.1109/oajpe.2019.2952812

A Benchmark Distribution System for Investigation of Residential Microgrids With Multiple Local Generation and Storage Devices

2020· article· en· W3000512700 on OpenAlexafffund
Syed A. Raza, Jin Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Distributed generationComputer scienceElectric power systemGridPower (physics)Energy storageMicrogridPhase (matter)Distributed computingReliability engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Electrical engineeringRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A benchmark distribution system is developed for investigating control and energy management of distributed generation (DG) at a residential level in the form of three single-phase microgrids. The benchmark is derived from a typical distribution network architecture with common parameters found in North-America systems including wiring specifications, line impedances and connection details for rooftop PV systems. This benchmark system can accommodate microgrids operating in both grid-connected and islanded modes. Within this benchmark, multiple single-phase DG sources located in different phases can be coordinated to form a dynamically balanced three phase system under different load and generation profiles in different phases. The coordination of DG sources in a particular phase is achieved through an intra-phase power management device, while mitigating loads and generation imbalance among all phases are done by an inter-phase power management scheme. It is expected that this benchmark system will facilitate investigation of impacts posed by proliferation of single-phase distributed generation devices and local storage systems in private residences. Three case studies have been carried out to demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of this benchmark 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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Access Journal of Power and EnergySame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207