MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404101698 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3492954

Comprehensive Evaluation and Testing of Multi-Phase Line-Wise Power Flow Method for Unbalanced AC Power Systems

2024· article· en· W4404101698 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Voltage Power Transmission Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPower flowComputer sciencePower (physics)Electric power systemLine (geometry)Power-flow studyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the growing complexity and unbalanced nature of future distribution systems, this paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the recently proposed multi-phase line-wise power flow (MPLW PF) method across various benchmark systems. The MPLW PF approach effectively models unbalanced power systems with different topologies and phase configurations. This study extends the application of MPLW PF by testing its accuracy, convergence, and computational efficiency on a wide range of AC multi-phase and three-phase systems, including radial and meshed configurations. The MPLW PF method is tested on several benchmark systems, demonstrating its accuracy, scalability, and significant run-time reduction compared to traditional bus-wise (BW) method and OpenDSS as a commercial software.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.311 · 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