MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411639832 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3583225

Behind-the-Fence Generation Forecasting: A Batched Decomposition Framework

2025· article· en· W4411639832 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gideon Egharevba, Arne G. Dankers, Hamidreza Zareipour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Electric System Operator
KeywordsFence (mathematics)Computer scienceDecompositionDatabaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we carry out behind-the-fence (BTF) generation forecasting using a new decomposition framework called batched decomposition framework. Here, BTF is framed as a particular structuring of the behind-the-meter (BTM) problem, where power is produced at generation and industrial facilities for internal loads rather than being supplied directly to the grid. BTF forecast is important for power system operators as it aids planning and decision making. This study employs a novel decomposition framework that effectively manages the non-linearity of BTF data while preventing the information leakage issues commonly found in traditional decomposition approaches. To assess the effectiveness of the proposed batched decomposition framework, we tested it on forecasting 24 hours ahead BTF for two Canadian provinces, Alberta and Quebec. The proposed method demonstrates high forecasting accuracy, comparable to the traditional decomposition method, while also avoiding information leakage and ensuring the practicability of the solution. Additionally, the results of the proposed method is benchmarked against various state of the art models using various error metrics. The batched decomposition method was shown to outperform the benchmarks for both test cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207