MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electricity load demand forecasting using exponential smoothing methods

2013· article· en· W2621541245 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Applied Sciences Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExponential smoothingMean absolute percentage errorDemand forecastingElectricity demandEconometricsSmoothingElectricityStatisticsExponential functionMathematicsMean squared errorElectricity generationOperations researchEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper five exponential smoothing methods are considered for load forecasting for lead times from a half-hour-ahead to a year-ahead. Forecasting load demand with high accuracy is required to prevent energy wasting and system failure. For this purpose, a half-hourly load demand of Malaysia for one year, from September 01, 2005 to August 31, 2006 was used. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) is used for comparing the forecasting accuracy. Time series of load demand recorded at half-hourly intervals contains more than one seasonal pattern, which are the intraday and intraweek seasonal cycles. The forecasts produced by the Holt-Winters Taylor (HWT) exponential smoothing outperformed the traditional Holt-Winters and modified Holt-Winters exponential smoothing methods.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.282
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