MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071085029 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2012.6334847

A new strategy for wind speed forecasting using hybrid intelligent models

2012· article· en· W2071085029 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ashraf Ul Haque, Paras Mandal, Julian Meng, Mary E. Kaye, Liuchen Chang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind speedWind powerWind power forecastingComputer scienceArtificial neural networkFuzzy logicWavelet transformMean squared errorPower (physics)Electric power systemData miningReal-time computingMeteorologyWaveletArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting wind power is considered as one of the most important tasks for the large-scale integration of intermittent wind-powered generators into power systems. Given the cubic relationship between wind speed and wind power, accurate forecasting of wind speed is important for the estimation of future wind power generation output. This paper presents a short-term wind speed forecasting technique using a hybrid intelligent algorithm that utilizes a data filtering technique based on wavelet transform (WT) and a soft computing model (SCM) based on fuzzy ARTMAP (FA) network. The effectiveness of the proposed hybrid WT+FA model is evaluated by comparing it with various other SCMs as well as hybrid models. The test results show that a significant reduction in forecast error of an individual FA network by more than 40% through the application of a combined FA and WT. The forecasting performance of the proposed WT+FA is not only robust and more effective than that of individual FA network but also it shows superiority over other considered SCMs. The forecasting techniques were tested using the real data from the North Cape wind farm located in PEI, Canada.

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)0.000
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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207