MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296641041 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100422

Effects of the Human-Mobility Change during the COVID-19 Pandemic on Electricity Demand

2022· article· en· W4296641041 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kentaka Aruga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity demandElectricityDistributed lagCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicBusinessMains electricitySupply and demandLagPeak demandEconomicsMicroeconomicsElectricity generationEconometricsMedicineEngineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated how the changes in the number of people’s visits to various locations during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced electricity demand. Using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model, the study reveals that while an increase in visits to groceries, pharmacies stores, and transit stations increased electricity demand, an increase in the hours people spent at home had a negative impact on the demand during the period of the state of emergency (SOE). This study also demonstrates the differences in the effects of human-mobility changes on electricity demand among different SOE periods, which was probably related to the weakening in the effect of the SOE measures as people became accustomed to the SOE announcements. As the energy transition unfolds across the world, ensuring the optimization of integrated energy systems has never been more important; thus, the current study suggests that controlling human mobility could be one of the options through which policymakers could intervene in the energy-demand sector.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicEnergy and Environment Impacts→French-language works237,207→