MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417170216 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2025.3642111

Multivariate Power Load Forecasting Model Considering Meteorological Feature-Load Dynamic Forward Lag and Turning Points

2025· article· W4417170216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunbo Niu, Pei Yong, Juan Yu, Zhifang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLagFocus (optics)Key (lock)Power (physics)Control theory (sociology)Point (geometry)Electric power systemThermal inertiaInertia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to building thermal inertia and delayed user behavioral responses, power load often lags behind meteorological changes, particularly drops in temperature and humidity. Existing models tend to overlook this dynamic lag relationship. To address these challenges, this study proposes a power load forecasting model that integrates three key mechanisms: a dynamic forward lag mechanism, a turning point attention mechanism, and a temporal and channel hybrid mechanism. These components collectively enable the forecasting model to adaptively align meteorological lags, focus on abrupt load transitions, and capture both global temporal dependencies and local feature interactions, thereby enhancing its ability to model complex load behaviors and improve prediction accuracy. Seven experiments were conducted using load data from Singapore and Calgary, Canada, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed model. Numerical results show that the proposed method achieves higher forecasting accuracy compared to existing load forecasting approaches.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207