MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099459877 · doi:10.1002/9781119508311.ch31

Research with Disaggregated Electricity End‐Use Data in Households

2019· other· en· W3099459877 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Rowlands, Tobi Reid, Paul Parker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsSketchElectricityElectricity systemOrder (exchange)Energy (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)Environmental economicsKey (lock)Data scienceComputer scienceBusinessEconomicsElectricity generationEngineeringPower (physics)Computer securityElectrical engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in electricity systems mean that more detailed information about end uses are increasingly available to energy researchers. This chapter directs attention to one part of that broader set of transformations. Specifically, it focuses upon fine-resolution, disaggregated end-use electricity data in households. The chapter determines the impact of the availability of disaggregated end-use electricity information from households upon energy research. The investigation unfolds in four parts. First, the area of study is elaborated both by identifying the focus as well as other contiguous areas of research. Second, key research articles that use fine-resolution, disaggregated end-use electricity data in households are identified and briefly summarized. Third, these articles are compared with each other in order to delineate emerging themes. Fourth, reflection upon these themes and the potential to address policy debates is undertaken in order to sketch an agenda for energy researchers going forward.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207