MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402594205 · doi:10.1109/sds60720.2024.00011

Mining and Forecasting Energy Consumption Based on Weather Data

2024· article· en· W4402594205 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathaniel Giesbrecht, Owen A. Hnylycia, Carson K. Leung, Junyi Lu, Thanh Huy Daniel, Fan Jiang, Alfredo Cuzzocrea

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBig Data Technologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsEnergy consumptionWeather forecastingComputer scienceConsumption (sociology)MeteorologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a modern grid to be reliable, energy efficiency and identifying consistent energy consumption patterns are becoming essential. In this paper, we present a data science solution that analyzes and predicts temporal energy consumption patterns using techniques like frequent pattern mining, traditional machine learning and deep learning. Specifically, our data science solution mines and forecasts energy consumption based on some meteorological and environmental conditions over time series (e.g., hourly or daily data), and examines how weather conditions affect energy usage variation. Evaluation results on a real-world dataset show that our data science solution identified several distinct frequent patterns when using frequent pattern mining with equally distributed bins. These patterns reveal a significant relationship between irradiance and energy consumption, as well as a positive correlation between temperature and energy usage. Furthermore, our solution predicts and compares energy consumption for a specific year using hourly and daily weather data with decision tree, gradient boosting, linear regression, and random forest. Additionally, we applied a long short-term memory (LSTM) model to view energy consumption as time-series data, uncovering patterns in the energy data based on given time steps. These results demonstrate the practicality of our data solution in mining and forecasting energy consumption based on weather data.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data Technologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207