Integrating Knowledge Graphs into Distribution Grid Decision Support Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distribution grids are complex networks containing multiple pieces of equipment. These components are interconnected, and each of them is described by various attributes. A knowledge graph is an interesting data format that represents pieces of information as nodes and relations between the pieces as edges. In this paper, we describe the proposed vocabulary used to build a distribution system knowledge graph. We identify the concepts used in such graphs and a set of relations to represent links between concepts. Both provide a semantically rich representation of a system. Additionally, we offer a few illustrative examples of how a distributed system knowledge graph can be utilized to gain more insight into the operations of the grid. We show a simplified analysis of how outages can influence customers based on their locations and how adding DERs can influence/change it. These demonstrative use cases show that the graph-based representation of a distribution grid allows for integrating information of different types and how such a repository can be efficiently utilized. Based on the experiments with distribution system knowledge graphs presented in this article, we postulate that graph-based representation enables a novel way of storing information about power grids and facilitates interactive methods for their visualization and analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".