MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128711752 · doi:10.4018/jgim.2021030109

Modeling Residential Energy Consumption

2021· article· en· W3128711752 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

VenueJournal of Global Information Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsElectricityConsumption (sociology)Energy consumptionEnvironmental economicsEnergy managementComputer scienceService (business)AnalyticsConsumer behaviourEnergy (signal processing)BusinessMarketingData scienceEconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart meters that allow information to flow between users and utility service providers are expected to foster intelligent energy consumption. Previous studies focusing on demand-side management have been predominantly restricted to factors that utilities can manage and manipulate, but have ignored factors specific to residential characteristics. They also often presume that households consume similar amounts of energy and electricity. To fill these gaps in literature, the authors investigate two research questions: (RQ1) Does a data mining approach outperform traditional statistical approaches for modelling residential energy consumption? (RQ2) What factors influence household energy consumption? They identify household clusters to explore the underlying factors central to understanding electricity consumption behavior. Different clusters carry specific contextual nuances needed for fully understanding consumption behavior. The findings indicate electricity can be distributed according to the needs of six distinct clusters and that utilities can use analytics to identify load profiles for greater energy efficiency.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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