MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404961535 · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.11.002

Foundation models for the electric power grid

2024· article· en· W4404961535 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik F. Hamann, Blazhe Gjorgiev, Thomas Brunschwiler, L. S. A. Martins, Alban Puech, Anna Varbella, Jonas Weiß, Juan Bernabé-Moreno, Alexandre Blondin Massé, Seong Lok Choi, Ian Foster, Bri-Mathias Hodge, Rishabh Jain, Kibaek Kim, Vincent Mai, François Mirallès, Martin De Montigny, Octavio Ramos-Leaños, Hussein Suprême, Le Xie, El-Nasser S. Youssef, Arnaud Zinflou, Alexander Belyi, Ricardo J. Bessa, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Johannes Schmude, Stanislav Sobolevsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJoule · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Power gridGridElectric powerEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringGeologyPolitical sciencePhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJouleSame topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207