Expert Assessment of Prioritized Determinants For a Smarter Grid Through The Lens of Residential Demand Response: The Case Study of Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, smart grids have attracted considerable attention. However, despite the promising potential of the technologies encompassed within such systems, their adoption has been slow, geographically varied, and in the context of residential demand response, often subject to public scrutiny. The heterogeneous evolution of the smart grid is not only the product of technological limitations but is additionally sensitive to socio-political considerations prevalent at the national or provincial level. Through expert interviews that were conducted in Ontario, Canada, this study provides insights into which smart grid factors are considered as most important for its development, and also what are the drivers, inhibitors, benefits, and drawbacks that a smart grid provides and / or entails, placing particular emphasis on residential demand response programs. The constructs scrutinized were adapted from previous studies, and the information collected was analyzed following the procedure of the Grounded Delphi Method. The findings indicate that a consensus was reached, in that smart grids pave the way for increased demand flexibility and loss reductions, though these are contingent on measures being implemented regarding the creation of investment opportunities, engagement of consumers, and ensuring the security of private data. Relevant policy implications and research recommendations are also explored.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".