MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W560966115 · doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2015.05.011

Sensitivity-based chance-constrained Generation Expansion Planning

2015· article· en· W560966115 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectric Power Systems Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Mathematical optimizationJoint (building)ExploitReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceIterative methodAlgorithmMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Generation Expansion Planning problem with load uncertainty is formulated based on joint chance-constrained programming (CCP) and is solved by incorporating sensitivity into iterative algorithms. These algorithms exploit the characteristics of the system and its response to load variations. Sensitivities help to classify buses according to stress level, and sensitivity-based iterative algorithms distinguish each bus based on its contribution to the overall system reliability. The use of sensitivity overcomes some of the mathematical obstacles to solving joint CCP problems and, in addition, leads to optimal expansion solutions because uncertain loads are correctly estimated. The IEEE 30- and 118-bus test systems are used to demonstrate the proposed algorithms, and the results of these algorithms are compared with those of other algorithms for solving the joint CCP problem.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.233 · 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