Mapping China’s Electronic Power Consumption Using Points of Interest and Remote Sensing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producing gridded electric power consumption (EPC) maps at a fine geographic scale is critical for rational deployment and effective utilization of electric power resources. Brightness of nighttime light (NTL) has been extensively adopted to evaluate the spatial patterns of EPC at multiple geographical scales. However, the blooming effect and saturation issue of NTL imagery limit its ability to accurately map EPC. Moreover, limited sectoral separation in applying NTL leads to the inaccurate spatial distribution of EPC, particularly in the case of industrial EPC, which is often a dominant portion of the total EPC in China. This study pioneers the separate estimation of spatial patterns of industrial and nonindustrial EPC over mainland China by jointly using points of interest (POIs) and multiple remotely sensed data in a random forests (RF) model. The POIs provided fine and detailed information about the different socioeconomic activities and played a significant role in determining industrial and nonindustrial EPC distribution. Based on the RF model, we produced industrial, non-industrial, and overall EPC maps at a 1 km resolution in mainland China for 2011. Compared against statistical data at the county level, our results showed a high accuracy (R2 = 0.958 for nonindustrial EPC estimation, 0.848 for industrial EPC estimation, and 0.913 for total EPC). This study indicated that the proposed RF-based method, integrating POIs and multiple remote sensing data, can markedly improve the accuracy for estimating EPC. This study also revealed the great potential of POIs in mapping the distribution of socioeconomic parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".