MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508090158 · doi:10.1145/2934328.2934333

Understanding solar PV and battery adoption in Ontario

2016· article· en· W2508090158 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adedamola Adepetu, Srinivasan Keshav

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemBattery (electricity)Carbon footprintElectricityEnvironmental economicsGridDependency (UML)Computer scienceBusinessAutomotive engineeringGreenhouse gasEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adoption of solar photovoltaic panels and batteries greatly reduces a grid customer's carbon footprint, while simultaneously reducing their dependency on conventional electricity supply. Given the significance of both outcomes, it is important to understand the potential effect of energy policies on the adoption of these 'PV-battery systems' before they are actually implemented. We therefore design and implement an Agent-Based Model (ABM) that captures the purchase and usage of PV-battery systems. Focusing on Ontario, we use a survey to elicit the responsiveness of residents to potential energy policies. We parameterize the ABM based on survey results to forecast the relative performance of different energy policies. We find that PV-battery system adoption in Ontario is likely to be incremental rather than exponential. Moreover, we find that, of all the policies we evaluated, the most effective way to improve PV-battery system adoption is to significantly reduce its price.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.055 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207