MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133426918 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.35.3.369

Wind Speed Prediction for a Target Station Using Neural Networks and Particle Swarm Optimization

2011· article· en· W2133426918 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkMATLABWind speedComputer scienceMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, artificial neural networks (ANN) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) were applied to predict the average daily wind speed measured at a meteorological tower installed June 2005 at the Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission, in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. Wind speeds were collected covering the period between June 2005 and December 2008. Five reference airport meteorological stations were used as input for the neural network and PSO. The artificial neural network modeling was done using the Matlab® neural network toolbox, while the PSO algorithm is an in-house program written in Matlab®. The daily wind speeds generated by the ANN model and PSO were compared with the actual measured data. It was found that with six months of input data, both the ANN and the PSO were able to predict the short term daily wind speed for the following 36 months at the target station. The PSO obtained a smaller error compared to the neural network. The PSO algorithm was also able to find the best combination of input variables automatically, while the ANN used manually-selected input variables.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.171 · 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