MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239626846 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.0345

Solution techniques for transient stability‐constrained optimal power flow – Part I

2017· article· en· W4239626846 on OpenAlexaff
Shrirang Abhyankar, Guangchao Geng, Mihai Anitescu, Xiaoyu Wang, Venkata Dinavahi

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCarleton University
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)Power flowStability (learning theory)Control theory (sociology)Flow (mathematics)Transient flowComputer scienceElectric power systemPower (physics)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringMechanicsElectrical engineeringPhysicsThermodynamicsSurgeArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This series of studies present the state‐of‐the‐art for the solution of the transient stability constrained optimal power flow problem (TSC‐OPF). Three different classes of solution techniques: dynamic optimisation‐based, SIME method, and computational intelligence, are discussed in detail. Moreover, discussed are issues to consider while solving such problems, various application areas, and future directions in this research area. A comprehensive resource of the available literature, publicly available test systems, and relevant numerical libraries is also provided. This study presents the TSC‐OPF formulation and discusses various dynamic optimisation‐based approaches. Two optimisation techniques, full‐space and reduced‐space method, are presented for solving the resulting non‐linear optimisation problem.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations52
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207