MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220731898 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104173

Changing sensitivity to cold weather in Texas power demand

2022· article· en· W4220731898 on OpenAlexaff
Blake Shaffer, Daniel Quintero, Joshua D. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEngineer Research and Development CenterEnergy Foundation
KeywordsBlackoutElectrificationElectricity demandEnvironmental scienceElectricityCold weatherSensitivity (control systems)MeteorologyPeak demandPower demandSupply and demandAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsPower (physics)Electricity generationEconomicsEngineeringElectric power systemPower consumptionGeographyElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the effect of heightened temperature sensitivity on electricity demand in Texas during the February 2021 blackout event. Using 20 years of hourly data, we estimate the relationship between temperature and electricity demand; finding demand has become more responsive to cold temperatures over time. This is consistent with the fact electric heating has similarly increased over the past 20 years in Texas. We find during the February 2021 event, average electricity demand was 8% higher, and approximately 10,000 MW higher during the peak hour, than it would have been had temperature sensitivity remained unchanged at early 2000s levels. Our results highlight that Texas's increased sensitivity to cold weather extremes is not limited to the supply side, but the demand side as well. These findings have implications to other regions that are seeking to reduce carbon emissions through the electrification of heating.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207