MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201233344 · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.010

Energy Forecasting for Event Venues: Big Data and Prediction Accuracy

2015· article· en· W2201233344 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katarina Grolinger, Alexandra L’Heureux, Miriam A. M. Capretz, Luke Seewald

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Buildings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsLondon HydroWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Support vector machinePredictive modellingBig dataEnergy consumptionGranularityEvent (particle physics)Data miningArtificial neural networkMachine learningEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in sensor technologies and the proliferation of smart meters have resulted in an explosion of energy-related data sets. These Big Data have created opportunities for development of new energy services and a promise of better energy management and conservation. Sensor-based energy forecasting has been researched in the context of office buildings, schools, and residential buildings. This paper investigates sensor-based forecasting in the context of event-organizing venues, which present an especially difficult scenario due to large variations in consumption caused by the hosted events. Moreover, the significance of the data set size, specifically the impact of temporal granularity, on energy prediction accuracy is explored. Two machine-learning approaches, neural networks (NN) and support vector regression (SVR), were considered together with three data granularities: daily, hourly, and 15 minutes. The approach has been applied to a large entertainment venue located in Ontario, Canada. Daily data intervals resulted in higher consumption prediction accuracy than hourly or 15-min readings, which can be explained by the inability of the hourly and 15-min models to capture random variations. With daily data, the NN model achieved better accuracy than the SVR; however, with hourly and 15-min data, there was no definitive dominance of one approach over another. Accuracy of daily peak demand prediction was significantly higher than accuracy of consumption prediction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations162
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and BuildingsSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207