MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376504850 · doi:10.1080/03155986.2023.2209451

Centralized production planning using reference operating points: application to fossil fuel power plants

2023· article· en· W4376504850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sebastián Lozano, Ignacio Contreras

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de España
KeywordsPower stationProduction (economics)ElectricityData envelopment analysisAggregate (composite)Electricity generationFossil fuelCriteria air contaminantsPower (physics)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringWaste managementAir pollutantsMathematicsAir pollutionEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes a centralized Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach for determining efficient operation points for the different plants of an organization given the desired aggregate production targets. The proposed approach minimizes the total input consumption and undesirable output generation. The concept of a reference operating point for each plant is introduced and used to scalarize the multiobjective problem as well as to anchor the targets computed for each plant. Additional DEA models to check the feasibility of the aggregate production targets and to gauge remaining slack capacity for each plant are also formulated. The proposed approach has been applied to the electricity mix and pollutant emissions of fossil fuel power plants owned by a large US utility. A scenario of 5% reduction in the aggregate electricity production has been considered together with +/−20% bounds on the total electricity produced by each plant. The results indicate that, giving the same importance to all pollutants, reductions of 6% and 9% for CO2 and Hg, respectively, and above 35% for SO2 and NOx can be achieved. These emissions reductions obtained by centralized production planning are larger than those that can be achieved by the individual plants independently determining their own production plans.

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)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.484
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
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFOR Information Systems and Operational ResearchSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207