MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971421510 · doi:10.1109/epec.2014.13

Aggregate Load Forecast with Payback Model of the Electric Water Heaters for a Direct Load Control Program

2014· article· en· W1971421510 on OpenAlexaff
M. Shaad, Rachid Errouissi, Chris Diduch, Mary E. Kaye, Liuchen Chang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoad profileElectrical loadAggregate (composite)Controller (irrigation)Automotive engineeringPayback periodComputer scienceKalman filterSimulationEnvironmental scienceEngineeringElectricityVoltageElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic electric water heaters (DEWH) hold a large share of residential load in North America. The aggregated load profile of electric water heaters follows a similar pattern to the total household load profile, which means that changing the profile of DEWH load can significantly change the shape of the aggregated load profile. To change the load profile, the controller requires an estimation of future load profile and the payback effect of the control action on the forecasted load. This paper presents a load forecast module that uses a Kalman filtered neural network to forecast the aggregated controllable load combined with a statistical payback model to identify the impact of the control action on the load forecast. The proposed method was used by the University of New Brunswick as part of a pilot project named Power Shift Atlantic that aims to provide more than 11MW of ancillary services by controlling more than 1200 controllable loads. The experimental results on the real pilot project shows that the forecast method can be adapted with the dynamic behaviour of the customers. The payback model was also verified by applying various control signals on the pilot project.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207