MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130956803 · doi:10.3808/jeil.202400164

Development of An Interval Chance-Constrained Mixed-Integer Linear Programming Model for Electric Power System Planning — A Case Study for the Province of Alberta, Canada

2025· article· W7130956803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. L. Huang, C. Z. Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear programmingElectric power systemElectricity generationElectricityModular designInterval (graph theory)Profit (economics)Key (lock)Mains electricity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reducing carbon emissions from power systems is essential for meeting increasingly stringent decarbonization require- ments while maintaining reliable electricity supply and economic performance. This study develops an interval chance-constrained mixed-integer linear programming (ICM) model to maximize total system profit and support capacity expansion and generation planning under uncertainty. The proposed ICM framework integrates mixed-integer programming, chance-constrained programming, and interval linear programming to represent both risk preferences and interval-type uncertainties in key inputs, and it considers eight planned power generation technologies. The model generates optimal technology-specific capacity expansion plans and electricity generation strategies that satisfy end-user demand while complying with carbon dioxide (CO2) emission targets under three risk levels. The approach is demonstrated through a provincial-scale case study in Alberta, Canada, where uncertainties and risks are quantified and trade-offs among multiple system criteria are examined. Results indicate that the share of installed capacity for small modular reactors (SMRs) will increase rapidly, clean energy generation will rise to 66% of total electricity production, and total CO2 emissions will decrease by approximately 34%. The proposed framework provides decision-makers with a practical tool for optimizing provincial power systems and advancing long-term environmental and economic sustainability.

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)0.001
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 score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Informatics LettersSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207