MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206739815 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3138990

Microgrid Digital Twins: Concepts, Applications, and Future Trends

2021· article· en· W4206739815 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Madary, Juan C. Vásquez, Hamid Baz Mohammadi, Baseem Khan, Ying Wu, Josep M. Guerrero

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)
FundersVillum Fonden
KeywordsMicrogridComputer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the fourth industrial revolution, and with the recent advances in information and communication technologies, thedigital twinningconcept is attracting the attention of both academia and industry worldwide. A microgrid digital twin (MGDT) refers to the digital representation of a microgrid (MG), which mirrors the behavior of its physical counterpart by using high-fidelity models and simulation platforms as well as real-time bi-directional data exchange with the real twin. With the massive deployment of sensor networks and IoT technologies in MGs, a huge volume of data is continuously generated, which contains valuable information to enhance the performance of MGs. MGDTs provide a powerful tool to manage the huge historical data and real-time data stream in an efficient and secure manner and support MGs’ operation by assisting in their design, operation management, and maintenance. In this paper, the concept of the digital twin (DT) and its key characteristics are introduced. Moreover, a workflow for establishing MGDTs is presented. The goal is to explore different applications of DTs in MGs, namely in design, control, operator training, forecasting, fault diagnosis, expansion planning, and policy-making. Besides, an up-to-date overview of studies that applied the DT concept to power systems and specifically MGs is provided. Considering the significance of situational awareness, security, and resilient operation for MGs, their potential enhancement in light of digital twinning is thoroughly analyzed and a conceptual model for resilient operation management of MGs is presented. Finally, future trends in MGDTs are discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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

Citations200
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207