MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409651746 · doi:10.1049/enc2.70006

Multi‐phase microgrid resiliency assessment framework against extreme weather events

2025· article· en· W4409651746 on OpenAlexafffund
Avishek Sapkota, Rajesh Karki

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Conversion and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrogridExtreme weatherPhase (matter)Environmental scienceComputer scienceClimate changeGeologyArtificial intelligenceChemistryOceanographyControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impact of climate change is leading to a phenomenal increase in the frequency and intensity of high‐impact, low‐probability (HILP) weather events, which cause widespread power outages. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop resilient power distribution systems against such extreme events. Presently, the methods and metrics to assess grid resilience against HILP events are at an early stage of development and need further work to make them widely implementable in grid resilience investment planning. To address this issue, this study proposes a Monte Carlo‐based framework to evaluate the resilience of distribution systems in the presence of distributed energy resources under two distinct phases: (1) during the event as the system succumbs to the extreme forces, and (2) in its aftermath as the restoration proceeds. This allows power system utilities to analyse the effectiveness of various resilience enhancement strategies for different phases of extreme weather events. The framework also establishes a mathematical relationship to determine the post‐event restoration time based on the hierarchical sequence of component repairs, which depends on the inter‐dependence of component failures and repair crew availability. The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through case studies on the modified IEEE 69‐bus system.

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 score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Conversion and EconomicsSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207