MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394564219 · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114083

Digitalization of power distribution grids: Barrier analysis, ranking and policy recommendations

2024· article· en· W4394564219 on OpenAlex
Roberto Monaco, Claire Bergaentzlé, Jose Angel Leiva Vilaplana, Emmanuel Ackom, Per Sieverts Nielsen

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020European Commission
KeywordsElectrificationRenewable energySoftware deploymentSmart gridDecentralizationEnvironmental economicsDistribution (mathematics)Ranking (information retrieval)Energy policyRisk analysis (engineering)ElectricityBusinessIndustrial organizationProcess managementComputer scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The energy transition process that is being driven by the decentralization and electrification of energy systems impacts significantly on electricity distribution grids. The fast-evolving technical and policy landscape prompts distribution system operators (DSOs) to modernize their operational strategies. This underscores the critical significance of digitalization investments, particularly in optimizing grid performance, managing renewable energy integration, and meeting evolving consumer demands. Despite the expected gains from digital technologies, their deployment in power distribution grids remains limited and partial. This study comprehensively examines the barriers hindering the digitalization of distribution grids, including the technical, organizational, regulatory, economic and human factors. By combining insights from existing literature with interviews with European DSO representatives, we have ranked the barriers by order of significance and identified those that need priority action. We ultimately provide policy guidance with practical recommendations and associated measures to overcome them. The outcomes of our joint analysis inform DSOs, policy-makers and field experts, and serve to formulate detailed policy recommendations to accelerate digitalization.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.227 · 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