MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313590472 · doi:10.1186/s43067-022-00067-w

Optimum generation scheduling incorporating wind energy using HHO–IGWO algorithm

2023· article· en· W4313590472 on OpenAlexafffund
Dinesh Dhawale, Vikram Kumar Kamboj, Priyanka Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMitacsUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsRenewable energyPower system simulationWind powerScheduling (production processes)Electric power systemMathematical optimizationEngineeringComputer scienceEconomic dispatchReliability engineeringOperations researchOperations managementPower (physics)Electrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, renewable energy participation is gaining importance in the existing power system. However, the large penetration of these renewable energy sources into the existing power system network may cause an imbalance in supply and demand response. Unit commitment is the decision-making process in which generating units are turned ON and OFF at the hourly interval as per the load demand under certain constraints to provide economic scheduling. Thus, an advanced intelligent approach is needed to cope with this combined unit commitment problem with a large penetration of intermittent sources. This paper offers the solution to optimal scheduling by implementing the hybrid Harris Hawks optimizer algorithm (HHO–IGWO). Standard IEEE systems with 10-, 19-, 20-, and 40 units are simulated. Further, to test the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method, a comparative analysis for a 10-, 20-, and 40-unit system has also been performed with penetration. The comparative analysis reveals that proposed is more efficient in tackling unit commitment problem in the presence of wind as renewable energy source.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electrical Systems and Information TechnologySame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207