MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979513172 · doi:10.1166/jctn.2019.8300

Electric Load Forecasting with Deep Machine Learning

2019· article· en· W2979513172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ala Adin Baha Eldin Mustafa Abdelaziz, Ka Fei Thang, Jacqueline Lukose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean absolute percentage errorJSONComputer scienceJavaScriptArtificial neural networkDocument Object ModelMachine learningPopulationNonlinear autoregressive exogenous modelData miningArtificial intelligenceDatabaseXMLWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most commonly used form of energy in houses, factories, buildings and agriculture is the electrical energy, however, in recent years, there has been an increase in electrical energy demand due to technology advancements and rise in population, therefore an appropriated forecasting system must be developed to predict these demands as accurately as possible. For this purpose, five models were selected, they are Bidirectional-Long Short Term Memory (Bi-LSTM), Feed Forward Neural Network (FFNN), Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), Nonlinear Auto Regressive network with eXogenous inputs (NARX) and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). This paper will demonstrate the development of these selected models using MATLAB and an android mobile application, which is used to visualize and interact with the data. The performance of the selected models was evaluated by performing the Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE), the selected historical data used to perform the MAPE was obtained from Toronto, Canada and Tasmania, Australia, where the year 2006 until 2016 was used as training data and the year 2017 was used to test the MAPE of the historical data with the models’ data. It is observed that the NARX model had the least MAPE for both the regions resulting in 1.9% for Toronto, Canada and 2.9% for Tasmania, Australia. Google cloud is used as the IoT (Internet of Things) platform for NARX data model, the 2017 datasets is converted to JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file using JavaScript programming language, for data visualization and analysis for the android mobile application.

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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Theoretical NanoscienceSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207