MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166693625 · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-12-0339.1

Wind Conditions in a Fjordlike Bay and Predictions of Wind Speed Using Neighboring Stations Employing Neural Network Models

2013· article· en· W2166693625 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jens J. Currie, Pierre Goulet, A. W. Ratsimandresy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind speedArtificial neural networkEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyWind directionBayPrevailing windsRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceGeologyGeographyOceanographyEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper evaluates the applicability of neural networks for estimating wind speeds at various target locations using neighboring reference locations along the south coast of Newfoundland, Canada. The stations were chosen to cover a variety of topographic features and span distances in excess of 100 km. The goal of the study is to provide a general description of the summer wind conditions along the south coast of Newfoundland and to assess the potential application of neural networks for wind speed predictions. Analysis of wind data from July to October showed the wind going dominantly toward the northeast with speeds ranging from 0 to 45 m s −1 . The efficacy of neural networks to predict wind speeds varied among stations and was largely influenced by the presence/absence of wind barriers. Sensitivity analysis on neural network performance concluded that an absolute minimum of 3000 h of continuous monitoring is needed to effectively train neural networks to predict wind speeds. The conclusions of this study have implications for future work utilizing wind speed data where a generalization of uniform wind speeds is assumed.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207