MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387641564 · doi:10.1049/stg2.12136

Control coordination in inverter‐based microgrids using AoI‐based 5G schedulers

2023· article· en· W4387641564 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Smart Grid · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeOffice of Energy EfficiencyDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsManitoba HydroU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMicrogridScheduling (production processes)Latency (audio)SlicingCo-simulationDistributed computingGridEmbedded systemReal-time computingControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A coordinated set point automatic adjustment with correction enabled (C‐SPAACE) framework that uses 5G communication for real‐time control coordination between inverter‐based resources (IBR) in microgrids is proposed. Utilising slicing capability, 5G offers low‐latency communication to C‐SPAACE under normal conditions. However, given the multitude of power grid use cases, a certain 5G slice for C‐SPAACE may have access only to limited radio spectrum resources, which if not managed well, greatly undermines the communication needs of C‐SPAACE framework. Thus, optimally scheduling the available spectrum resources among IBRs in a sliced 5G network‐based C‐SPAACE framework becomes a critical problem. To address this issue, the authors utilise a novel age of information (AoI) metric and designs an AoI‐based 5G scheduler to provide low‐latency communication to C‐SPAACE. Following this, a co‐simulation environment is designed using PSCAD/EMTDC and Python to simulate a microgrid supported by 5G communication. Time‐domain simulation case studies are performed using the proposed co‐simulation environment to evaluate the performance of C‐SPAACE using 5G with both AoI‐based and other baseline (non‐AoI) schedulers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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