MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220817608 · doi:10.1109/oajpe.2022.3161101

Day-Ahead Electricity Demand Forecasting Competition: Post-COVID Paradigm

2022· article· en· W4220817608 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Farrokhabadi, Jethro Browell, Yi Wang, Stephen Makonin, Wencong Su, Hamidreza Zareipour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilIEEE Foundation
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Electricity demandCompetition (biology)Demand forecasting2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)ElectricityEconomicsEngineeringElectricity generationMedicineVirologyOperations managementPower (physics)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 related shutdowns have made significant impacts on the electric grid operation worldwide. The global electrical demand plummeted around the planet in 2020 continuing into 2021. Moreover, demand shape has been profoundly altered as a result of industry shutdowns, business closures, and people working from home. In view of such massive electric demand changes, energy forecasting systems struggle to provide an accurate demand prediction, exposing operators to technical and financial risks, and further reinforcing the adverse economic impacts of the pandemic. In this context, the “IEEE DataPort Day-Ahead Electricity Demand Forecasting Competition: Post-COVID Paradigm” was organized to support the development and dissemination state-of-the-art load forecasting techniques that can mitigate the adverse impact of pandemic-related demand uncertainties. This paper presents the findings of this competition from the technical and organizational perspectives. The competition structure and participation statistics are provided, and the winning methods are summarized. Furthermore, the competition dataset and problem formulation is discussed in detail. Finally, the dataset is published along with this paper for reproducibility and further research.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Access Journal of Power and EnergySame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207