MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Electric Vehicle Charging Diversity Based on AMI and Vehicle Telematics Data

2025· article· W4416136229 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucas A. Almeida, Nicolas Sockeel, Shaun Tuyuri, Jouni Peppanen, Daniel Hebb, James G. Gurney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelematicsElectric vehicleMetering modeService (business)Charging stationDiversity (politics)Distribution transformer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption is projected to considerably grow and lead to increasing impacts to distribution systems, especially to service transformers and low-voltage secondary circuits. Distribution utilities need to understand EV charging characteristics to examine charging impacts, mitigation alternatives, and changes to distribution planning and design guidelines. This paper assesses residential EV charging demand diversity using two distinct, real, large datasets: EV telematics and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data from Ontario, Canada. The results demonstrate that, with increasing EV group sizes, the aggregated charging demand profiles become smoother and the peak demands per vehicle reduce while the diversity factors increase due to reduced charging coincidence. The presented results provide invaluable insights for utilities seeking to optimize service equipment investments, manage replacement costs, and address lead times in anticipation of rising EV adoption, enabling distribution systems to reliably accommodate future charging demands.

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)0.003
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 score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207