MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292820000 · doi:10.1049/gtd2.12582

Resiliency constraint proactive scheduling against hurricane in multiple energy carrier microgrid

2022· article· en· W4292820000 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Ghasemi, Mohsen Gitizadeh, Innocent Kamwa, Omid Ghareghani

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslandingMicrogridUpstream (networking)Computer scienceInteger programmingScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationReliability engineeringResilience (materials science)Linear programmingContingencyDemand responseDistributed computingDistributed generationEngineeringComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hurricane, as one of the most frequent natural events, causes damage to the infrastructure of the upstream networks of multiple energy carrier microgrids (MECMs). Thus, the supply continuity of critical loads is threatened due to sudden islanding of MECMs from the upstream networks. Therefore, providing a framework to enhance the resilience of MECMs against this threat is necessary. In response to this issue, this paper presents a proactive optimal operation scheduling approach that is constrained to the feasible islanding of MECM from the upstream networks as well as the continuous suppling of the critical loads until the return of the upstream networks. Proposed resiliency constraint proactive scheduling is formulated as a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) that considers the interdependence between all three electric, gas and heat networks. The demand responsibility of all three electric, thermal and gas loads is used to consider the satisfaction of the consumer beside economic and resilient operation. Furthermore, both normal operation and contingency‐based uncertainties are taken into account and captured using a robust optimization method. Then in order to evaluate the resilience of the MECM, feasible islanding and preparedness indices are proposed. Finally, the effectiveness of proposed approach is illustrated using an MECM test.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207