Errors and uncertainties associated with missing wind data and short records
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A near‐complete 4 year data set of 10 min average 80 m wind speeds is used to examine the impact of missing data on monthly and yearly estimates of mean wind speed and energy production from a generic wind turbine. Missing data is a source of uncertainty in wind energy resource assessment studies. Quantifying that uncertainty can improve the reliability of P90 and related wind farm energy production estimates. An empirical relationship between missing data percentage and relative uncertainty in monthly mean wind speed is derived. Relationships between uncertainties in monthly average wind speed and uncertainties in monthly energy production are also explored. In many cases with monthly data losses of 10% or less the contribution to the overall uncertainty in annual energy production will be small (<1%), but with substantial losses in cold winters, typically caused by icing; the uncertainties can become more significant. The data set is also used to indicate uncertainties associated with short data periods. Annual average wind speed estimates based on less than a complete year's data also add significant uncertainty to wind resource assessments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it