MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150462782 · doi:10.1109/ptc.2009.5282220

Application of generalized neuron in electricity price forecasting

2009· article· en· W2150462782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanam Mirzazad-Barijough, Ali Sahari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingComputer scienceArtificial neural networkElectricity marketData modelingElectricity price forecastingElectricityFunction (biology)Artificial intelligenceData setRelation (database)EconometricsMachine learningData miningEconomicsMicroeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent deregulation in electricity industry, price forecasting has become the basis for this competitive market. The precision of this forecasting is essential in bidding strategies. So far, the artificial neural networks which can find an accurate relation between the historical data and the price have been used for this purpose. One major problem is that, they usually need a large number of training data and neurons either for complex function approximation and data fitting or classification and pattern recognition. As a result, the network topology has a significant impact on the network computational time and ability to learn and also to generate unseen data from training data. To overcome these problems, a new structure using generalized neurons (GN) is adapted in this paper. The proposed structure needs a smaller data set for training. So this property of GN can be very useful for price forecasting. The data such as historical prices are not available enough for most markets. The significance, viability and efficiency of the proposed approach, in electricity price forecasting, are shown using Ontario market data points and various GN models are compared.

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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207