MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389036032 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.24585051

Towards Harmonious Decentralization of Energy Systems: A Vision of Interoperable Peer-to-Peer Energy Markets

2023· preprint· en· W4389036032 on OpenAlexaff
Sakshi Mishra, Roohallah Khatami, Yu Christine Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsumerInteroperabilityScalabilityComputer scienceDecentralizationOrchestrationDistributed computingGridDistributed generationSmart gridEnergy marketPeer-to-peerProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessElectricityEngineeringRenewable energyEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a hierarchical framework aimed at decentralizing the distribution systems market operations using localized peer-to-peer energy markets. A hierarchically designed decision-making algorithm approaches the power systems market operations from a bottom-up perspective. The three layers of the hierarchical framework operate in orchestration to enable prosumers (the grass-root ac- tors) to maximize their revenues - hence, a prosumer-centric framework. The design of the framework incorporates existing smart grid technologies (Virtual Power Plants, Microgrids, Distributed Energy Resources) and redefines their functional objectives to align them with the decentralization paradigm focused on empowering the bottom-up grid operations approach. On one hand, the framework is enabling prosumers with simultaneous access to the buy-sell choices that help them maximize their cost savings while ensuring their consumption patterns and preferences are not being traded off as a result of top-down operational decisions. On the other hand, it is designed to operate in harmony with the existing top-down grid operations mechanisms - thereby reducing the potential friction in its adaptation. This marriage of the top-down and bottom-up operational approaches is facilitated through meticulous orchestration of operational timescales. The framework’s novel design also incorporates scalability and interoperability considerations, thereby tackling the challenge of decentralization holistically.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207