MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793544 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-226

Comparison of Multi-Technology Routes and Construction of Virtual Simulation Environment for Energy Storage Power Station Using 3D Visualization Technology

2025· article· en· W4409793544 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet of Things and Social Network Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceEnergy storagePower (physics)Computer graphics (images)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper constructs a three-dimensional model of energy storage power station through threedimensional visualization technology, and builds a virtual simulation environment of energy storage power station by inputting realistic environmental parameters.Four different energy storage technology routes, namely lithium-electronic battery energy storage, lead-acid battery energy storage, pumping energy storage and air compression energy storage, are selected, and the energy storage performance of the four technology routes is explored in depth based on the constructed virtual environment.At the same time, the energy storage performance of four different technology routes in the virtual environment of the energy storage power station is compared using the energy storage capacity and energy storage efficiency as the measurement indexes, and the energy storage technology routes suitable for the environment of this paper are highlighted based on the comparison results.In the energy storage simulation, the net energy storage capacities of the four technology routes in the virtual environment of this paper are 728.99MW,724.18MW, 461.50MW and 393.45MW, respectively.Compared with the other three energy storage technology routes, the lead-acid battery energy storage capacity fluctuation is smaller, and the energy storage capacity is higher, with a higher degree of adaptability to the virtual simulation environment in this paper.At the same time, the average energy storage efficiency of lead-acid battery in four quarters is 99.71%, compared with the next highest efficiency of lithium-electronic battery energy storage efficiency increased by 14.29%, which further indicates that the lead-acid battery energy storage technology route in this paper builds the best performance of the virtual simulation environment of the energy storage power station.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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