MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010992062 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2015.11.14

Weibull Distribution Function for Wind Energy Estimation of Gharo (Sindh)

2015· article· en· W2010992062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Shoaib, Imran Siddiqui, Firoz Ahmed, Saif Ur Rehman, Muhammad Rashid Tanveer, Saif Uddin Jilani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionStatisticsMathematicsWind speedGoodness of fitEstimatorMean squared errorProbability density functionRoot mean squareMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weibull distribution function is fitted to a measured wind speed data set at mast height of 30 m and Gharo-Sindh (Pakistan) is selected as a case site under study. Wind speed data recorded in one minute interval for the year 2004 is used to estimate Weibull parameters (k and c). Weibull parameters are calculated using Modified Maximum Likelihood Method (MMLM), Maximum likelihood Method (MLM) and Method of Moment (MoM) and the results obtained are compared. Kolomogorov-Smirnov test, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and R2 tests are performed to test the goodness-of-fit of the Weibull distribution function. The analysis is based on recorded monthly and yearly wind speed data. Goodness-of-fit tests indicate a better performance of MMLM and MLM as compared to MoM. Wind power density is estimated for the site under study using MMLM and Weibull function estimator. A lowest Weibull mean wind speed of 3.73 m/s in the month of October and highest value of 7.90 m/s for August are observed and correspondingly power densities of 80.95 W/m2 and 425.87 W/m2 are obtained. Descriptive statistics for the measured wind speed data is also evaluated.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207