MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076566755 · doi:10.1504/ejie.2009.025049

Long-term electricity demand forecasting for power system planning using economic, demographic and climatic variables

2009· article· en· W2076566755 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Chui, Ali Elkamel, R. Surit, Eric Croiset, Peter Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean J of Industrial Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemand forecastingElectricity demandEconometricsTerm (time)ElectricityAutoregressive modelComputer scienceElectricity generationOperations researchEconomicsPower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stochastic planning of power production overcomes the drawback of deterministic models by accounting for uncertainties in the parameters. Such planning accounts for demand uncertainties by using scenario sets and probability distributions. However, in previous literature, different scenarios were developed by either assigning arbitrary values or assuming certain percentages above or below a deterministic demand. Using forecasting techniques, reliable demand data can be obtained and inputted to the scenario set. This article focuses on the long-term forecasting of electricity demand using autoregressive, simple linear and multiple linear regression models. The resulting models using different forecasting techniques are compared through a number of statistical measures and the most accurate model was selected. Using Ontario's electricity demand as a case study, the annual energy, peak load and base load demand were forecasted up to the year 2025. In order to generate different scenarios, different ranges in the economic, demographic and climatic variables were used. [Received 16 October 2007; Revised 31 May 2008; Revised 25 October 2008; Accepted 1 November 2008]

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean J of Industrial EngineeringSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207