Validation and comparison of three power prediction models for CPV modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate predictive energy modelling of a solar farm requires a thorough understanding of solar spectral variations, along with the spectral response and optical properties of the photovoltaic system. This paper investigates the minimum data required to accurately predict power output from CPV modules, comparing modelled output to both measured data and the existing method used by Sandia PV Array Performance Model (SAPM). Three models were derived based on various weather inputs. A Detailed Spectral Model (DS) uses SMARTS, inputting measured air mass, aerosols, ozone and water content, and incorporating measured DNI to account for cloudy days. The Sub-System Algebraic Model (SSA) removes the need for instantaneous spectrum calculations by creating equations for each sub-cell and DNI, based on the same inputs as the DS. These two models rely heavily on aerosol, which is not readily available. Alternatively, an Empirical model (EMP) may be used to determine the relationship between measured output power and easily measureable weather data (ambient temperature, air mass, direct normal irradiance and water content). These non-linear DS, SSA and EMP models have a bias error of 3.09 %, 4.24 % and −0.67 %, respectively. It was also found that the SSA model can be used in lieu of the SAPM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".