MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390681935 · doi:10.1049/icp.2023.3140

Designing EV charging stations deployment through holistic simulations: the SANEVEC project

2023· article· en· W4390681935 on OpenAlexaff
José-Luis Guisado-Lizar, G. Jiménez, Fernando Díaz-del-Río, José Luis Sevillano, Daniel Cagigas-Muñiz, M. J. Morón, Daniel Cascado-Caballero, Francisco J. Morales, Miguel Cárdenas‐Montes, Gabriel Wainer, David Ragel-Díaz-Jara, J. Rodríguez-Leal, Elena Cerezuela-Escudero, Juan M. Montes-Sánchez, Daniel Casanueva‐Morato, Alvaro Ayuso‐Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridSoftware deploymentCharging stationElectricityComputer scienceAir quality indexQuality (philosophy)Electric vehicleTransport engineeringTask (project management)Environmental scienceSimulationAutomotive engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringElectrical engineeringMeteorologyPower (physics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the optimal location of the large number of urban public charging stations that will have to be deployed in the following years to transition to electric vehicles (EVs) is a challenging task, as it is intimately interconnected with the complexity of urban traffic and electric grid operation. The city is a complex system in which emerging patterns such as traffic jams, and instabilities or even outages in the electric grid are difficult to predict. The layout of charging stations can alter those patterns in traffic and electric grid operation, with consequences to mobility, air quality, and electric system. The present article presents the concept under the research project SANEVEC. It will build a framework for the optimal determination of the location of EV charging stations in a city based on simulation, which will be able to reproduce the feedback effects between all the variables involved: locations of the stations, traffic patterns, characteristics, and operation of the electricity grid, charging fees and air quality in the city. It will employ artificial intelligence methods to find high-quality station location solutions from the simulations and to predict the air quality in the city.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207