MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406522135 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3531300

Loads Mismatch and Network Voltage Behavior for Future Planning of Demand Response With Customer Satisfaction

2025· article· en· W4406522135 on OpenAlexafffund
Ismail Arafat, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra, Julian Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionDemand responseComputer scienceVoltageBusinessElectrical engineeringEngineeringMarketingElectricity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs) aggregated into a generalized virtual battery (VB) offer a systematic approach to optimally manage such devices. However, challenges arise when operational conditions are oversimplified or overlooked, leading to a mismatch between expected and actual outcomes. This paper delves into the demand response mismatch (DRM) challenge within the context of peak load management, exploring the implications of power reductions stemming from external management and aggregator control. A customer satisfaction index has been introduced to assess the impact of such reductions on customer comfort. A comprehensive VB model is employed to govern the aggregator, ensuring adherence to all operational constraints. The DRM percentage is evaluated under both standard operating conditions and peak shaving strategies. The study also investigates the different types of customer discomfort according to device operation and cost. A predictive analysis of the percentages of load DRM serves as a valuable tool for future peak shaving planning. This research further analyzes the impacts of voltage variation on a distribution network that ends with customer loads.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207