MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting power system reliability and outage duration including emergency response

2020· article· en· W3088524078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Romney B. Duffey

Bibliographic record

VenueDependability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringFlooding (psychology)Range (aeronautics)Environmental scienceStormEmergency managementElectric power systemComputer sciencePower (physics)MeteorologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim. Enable prediction and planning for large-scale unprecedented power outages of importance for emergency planning and national response actions. Predict outage probability, duration and restoration using a theoretical framework that is applicable globally. Methods. Data have been collected for power losses and outage duration for a wide range of events in Belgium, Canada, Eire, France, Japan, Sweden, New Zealand and USA. A new theory and correlation is given for the probability of large regional power losses of up to nearly 50,000 MW(e) without additional infrastructure or grid damage. For severe and rare events with damage (major floods, fire, ice storms, hurricanes etc.) the outages are longer and the restoration probability depends on the degree of difficulty that limits access and restoration. The dynamic reliability requirements for emergency back-up power and pumping systems are derived, and demonstrated using the flooding of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina and of the Fukushima nuclear reactors by a tsunami. Conclusions . Explicit expressions have been given and validated for the probability and duration for the full range from “normal” large power losses to extended outages due to rare and more severe events with access and repair difficulty.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDependabilitySame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207