MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088707197 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2020.0244

Transmission and distribution co‐simulation: a review and propositions

2020· review· en· W3088707197 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Masoud Mohseni‐Bonab, Ali Hajebrahimi, Innocent Kamwa, Ali Moeini

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCo-simulationTransmission (telecommunications)Computer scienceDistribution (mathematics)Co-occurrenceTelecommunicationsSimulationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing trend of emerging new technologies in distribution networks, such as wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and distributed generations, the passive distribution systems may become ‘active’ which requires more study in the area of integrated transmission and distribution systems (ITDSs) and corresponding bilateral interactions. To solve this problem, most of the studies connect distinct simulators to create a novel co‐simulation framework for ITDS. In this study, the authors present a literature survey of existing ITDS co‐simulation frameworks along co‐optimisation in ITDS. These frameworks are categorised on multiple characteristics, such as simulation tools, synchronisation methods, and research topics. Furthermore, they propose a software platform that is focused on the integrated generation, transmission, distribution, and customer systems (IGTDCSs). The proposed framework also comprises several technological dimensions such as stochastic optimisation, high‐performance computing, and high‐level design software architecture for planning integrated and flexible power networks and optimising their technological trajectories and operational functioning considering uncertainties. By developing a prototype informed with software engineering and complex system design approaches, they will demonstrate the relevance of a unified vision of IGTDCS simulation in a minute‐by‐minute horizon, a vision that may later benefit electromagnetic transient simulation or stability co‐simulation tools, in horizons from the microsecond to the second.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207