MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design and Development of an Intelligent Tool for Retail Electric Provider Plan Selection

2021· article· en· W3208684372 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel J. Mabuggwe, Walid G. Morsi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Battery (electricity)Photovoltaic systemPlug-inComputer scienceSoftwareEnergy consumptionEnvironmental economicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an intelligent tool for retail electric provider plan selection is designed and developed for the residential customers and prosumers. The main objective of this tool is to provide decision support to the residential customers to enable them to make a feasible selection of local distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage as well as plug-in electric vehicles that will maximize the savings on their energy bill. In conjunction with decision support in finding feasible combinations of resources, a suitable retail electric provider is also chosen that will minimize their annual energy bill. In total, 48 homes were evaluated, 17 representative profiles of rooftop solar photovoltaic, home battery energy storage and plug-in electric vehicles as well as 24 retail electric provider plans consisting of flat, tiered and time-of-use plans were evaluated from Austin, Texas. This tool was designed using a knowledge base of rules for decision support and the difference in the minimum annual energy bills, before and after the resources are added to the homes, are used to calculate the personalized energy bill savings of the prosumers. This tool was implemented in MATLAB App-designer software.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207