MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005936311 · doi:10.1145/1925861.1925879

How internet concepts and technologies can help green and smarten the electrical grid

2011· article· en· W3005936311 on OpenAlexaff
Srinivasan Keshav, Catherine Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridComputer scienceThe InternetGridCarbon footprintRenewable energyDistributed computingTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebElectrical engineeringGreenhouse gasEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several powerful forces are gathering to make fundamental and irrevocable changes to the century-old grid. The next-generation grid, often called the 'smart grid,' will feature distributed energy production, vastly more storage, tens of millions of stochastic renewable-energy sources, and the use of communication technologies both to allow precise matching of supply to demand and to incentivize appropriate consumer behaviour. These changes will have the effect of reducing energy waste and reducing the carbon footprint of the grid, making it 'smarter' and 'greener.' In this position paper, we discuss how the concepts and techniques pioneered by the Internet, the fruit of four decades of research in this area, are directly applicable to the design of a smart, green grid. This is because both the Internet and the electrical grid are designed to meet fundamental needs, for information and for energy, respectively, by connecting geographically dispersed suppliers with geographically dispersed consumers. Keeping this and other similarities (and fundamental differences, as well) in mind, we propose several specific areas where Internet concepts and technologies can contribute to the development of a smart, green grid. We also describe some areas where the Internet operations can be improved based on the experience gained in the electrical grid. We hope that our work will initiate a dialogue between the Internet and the smart grid communities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.019
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication ReviewSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207