MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604466268 · doi:10.1109/tetc.2017.2692098

Mining Energy Consumption Behavior Patterns for Households in Smart Grid

2017· article· en· W2604466268 on OpenAlexaff
Shailendra Singh, Abdulsalam Yassine

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy consumptionSmart gridContext (archaeology)Consumption (sociology)InterdependenceBig dataSmart meterEnergy managementEnergy (signal processing)Data miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inarguably, buying-in consumer confidence through respecting their energy consumption behavior and preferences in various energy programs is imperative but also demanding. Household energy consumption patterns, which provide great insight into consumers energy consumption behavioral traits, can be learned by understanding user activities along with appliances used and their time of use. Such information can be retrieved from the context-rich smart meters big data. However, the main challenge is how to extract complex interdependencies among multiple appliances operating concurrently, and identify appliances responsible for major energy consumption. Furthermore, due to the continuous generation of energy consumption data, over a period of time, appliance associations can change. Therefore, they need to be captured regularly and continuously. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised progressive incremental data mining mechanism applied to smart meters energy consumption data through frequent pattern mining to overcome these challenges. This can establish a foundation for efficient energy demand management while ameliorating end-user participation. The details and the results of evaluation of the proposed mechanism using real smart meters dataset are also presented in this paper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations75
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in ComputingSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207