MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060606400 · doi:10.1109/naps.2010.5619586

A review of wind power and wind speed forecasting methods with different time horizons

2010· review· en· W2060606400 on OpenAlexaff
Saurabh S. Soman, Hamidreza Zareipour, O.P. Malik, Paras Mandal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermittencyWind powerWind power forecastingWind speedRenewable energyMeteorologyComputer scienceArtificial neural networkElectric power systemPower (physics)Environmental scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, environmental considerations have prompted the use of wind power as a renewable energy resource. However, the biggest challenge in integrating wind power into the electric grid is its intermittency. One approach to deal with wind intermittency is forecasting future values of wind power production. Thus, several wind power or wind speed forecasting methods have been reported in the literature over the past few years. This paper provides insight on the foremost forecasting techniques, associated with wind power and speed, based on numeric weather prediction (NWP), statistical approaches, artificial neural network (ANN) and hybrid techniques over different time-scales. An overview of comparative analysis of various available forecasting techniques is discussed as well. In addition, this paper further gives emphasis on the major challenges and problems associated with wind power prediction.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations873
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207