MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158737532 · doi:10.1002/pip.1180

Solar and photovoltaic forecasting through post‐processing of the Global Environmental Multiscale numerical weather prediction model

2011· article· en· W2158737532 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophie Pelland, George Galanis, George Kallos

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemMean squared errorEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyForecast skillSolar irradianceIrradianceSolar powerClimatologyStatisticsPower (physics)MathematicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Hourly solar and photovoltaic (PV) forecasts for horizons between 0 and 48 h ahead were developed using Environment Canada's Global Environmental Multiscale model. The motivation for this research was to explore PV forecasting in Ontario, Canada, where feed‐in tariffs are driving rapid growth in installed PV capacity. The solar and PV forecasts were compared with irradiance data from 10 North‐American ground stations and with alternating current power data from three Canadian PV systems. A 1‐year period was used to train the forecasts, and the following year was used for testing. Two post‐processing methods were applied to the solar forecasts: spatial averaging and bias removal using a Kalman filter. On average, these two methods lead to a 43% reduction in root mean square error (RMSE) over a persistence forecast (skill score = 0.67) and to a 15% reduction in RMSE over the Global Environmental Multiscale forecasts without post‐processing (skill score = 0.28). Bias removal was primarily useful when considering a “regional” forecast for the average irradiance of the 10 ground stations because bias was a more significant fraction of RMSE in this case. PV forecast accuracy was influenced mainly by the underlying (horizontal) solar forecast accuracy, with RMSE ranging from 6.4% to 9.2% of rated power for the individual PV systems. About 76% of the PV forecast errors were within ±5% of the rated power for the individual systems, but the largest errors reached up to 44% to 57% of rated power. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2011. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Natural Resources 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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations241
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Photovoltaics Research and ApplicationsSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207