MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378965807 · doi:10.1109/repc49397.2023.00015

Understanding Impacts of Frequency Calculations on Underfrequency Load Shedding

2023· article· en· W4378965807 on OpenAlexaff
Kumaraguru Prabakar, Yaswanth Nag Velaga, Andy Hoke, Rishabh Jain, Jay Sawant, Deepthi Vaidhynathan, Li Yu, Ken Aramaki, Lukas Unruh, Andrew Isaacs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsElectrovaya (Canada)
FundersNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRelayReliability (semiconductor)Load SheddingElectric power systemComputer scienceReliability engineeringAutomatic frequency controlProtective relayWork (physics)Power (physics)Electronic engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power system fundamental frequency-dependent protection decisions and control decisions are increasingly common in the distribution system space. Understanding the algorithms used in frequency measurements is critical to understanding the decisions made by the many intelligent electronic devices in the power system. These decisions are critically important for reliability analysis for interconnected power systems as they bear directly on resource planning to mitigate under-frequency conditions that would result in under-frequency load shedding (UFLS). This work aims to improve the understanding of frequency measurement algorithms, evaluate the intelligent electronic devices that use frequency measurements for decision making, and understand the algorithms' direct impact on frequency related decision making. First, this work presents background information on the use of frequency measurements in protection logic, specifically UFLS. Second, the paper presents a relay hardware evaluation test bed used to detect and protect systems from under-frequency events. Finally, the paper presents the dynamic events used to evaluate commercially available, off-the-shelf relay equipment and the results from the relay evaluation.

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)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207