MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANN Daily Peak Forecast for Peak Demand Charges Management

2020· article· en· W3106963434 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdeslem Kadri, Farah Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityDemand forecastingPeak demandComputer scienceLoad managementLoad profileBattery (electricity)Class (philosophy)Electricity marketPeak loadOperations researchEnvironmental economicsEngineeringAutomotive engineeringEconomicsElectrical engineeringPower (physics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demand charges (DC) is one of the major utility charges that represents a considerable portion of the electricity bill, especially in the case of large electricity consumers. Predicting the monthly peak of the facility helps manage peak demand charges (PDC). Forecasting of the monthly peak demand value of the facility is required to manage the PDC component of the energy bill. The monthly peak of a given class-A facility is a very specific and unique problem that requires an individual forecasting module for each facility because each facility is unique in its pattern of operation, energy consumption, and load profile. This paper proposes a methodology based on artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast the daily peak demand of a given class-A facility to help manage its PDC. Based on the market regulations of Ontario (Canada), and the use of battery storage systems (BSSs) and real data for a large class-A Canadian electricity consumer in Ontario, the simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed forecasting module in minimizing the DC cost of the class-A electricity customer. Using real class-A electricity consumer demand data, we show that our algorithm module is more consistent from day to day and provides a solution to peak demand problems.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207