MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400268996 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33943

Model-based analysis to identify the impact of factors affecting electricity gaps during COVID-19: A case study in Germany

2024· article· en· W4400268996 on OpenAlexaff
Nanae Kaneko, Yu Fujimoto, Hans‐Arno Jacobsen, Yasuhiro Hayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWaseda University
KeywordsElectricityPandemicElectricity demandMains electricityConsumption (sociology)Environmental economicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Supply and demandEconomicsBusinessNatural resource economicsEconometricsElectricity generationEngineeringMicroeconomicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated drastic changes in economic and lifestyle conditions, significantly altering residual electricity demand behavior. This alteration has expanded the demand gap between actual and forecasted electricity usage based on pre-pandemic data, highlighting a critical global issue. Many studies in the pandemic have explored the features of this widening gap, which is impacted by major social events like fast virus spread and lockdowns. However, the influence of factors like economic shifts and lifestyle changes on this demand remains largely unexplored, primarily due to the pandemic's significant effects in these areas. Understanding the essential factors affecting the demand gap is crucial for stakeholders in the electricity sector to develop effective strategies. This study examines the hourly electricity consumption and related factors during the specified period. We present a method combining time-series forecasting and sparse modeling. This helps identify critical factors affecting the electricity demand gap during the pandemic, highlighting the most crucial variables. Utilizing this method, we identify the variables that have undergone significant changes during the pandemic and evaluate their effects on the electricity demand gap. The effectiveness is proven by applying it to the dataset collected in German.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207