Wind Turbine Power Curve Modeling Using Advanced Parametric and Nonparametric Methods
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: Simulation or modeling
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.834
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Wind turbine power curve modeling is an important tool in turbine performance monitoring and power forecasting. There are several statistical techniques to fit the empirical power curve of a wind turbine, which can be classified into parametric and nonparametric methods. In this paper, we study four of these methods to estimate the wind turbine power curve. Polynomial regression is studied as the benchmark parametric model, and issues associated with this technique are discussed. We then introduce the locally weighted polynomial regression method, and show its advantages over the polynomial regression. Also, the spline regression method is examined to achieve more flexibility for fitting the power curve. Finally, we develop a penalized spline regression model to address the issues of choosing the number and location of knots in the spline regression. The performance of the presented methods is evaluated using two simulated data sets as well as an actual operational power data of a wind farm in North America.
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.
The record
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy
- Topic
- Wind Energy Research and Development
- Field
- Engineering
- Canadian institutions
- University of Manitoba
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
- Keywords
- Polynomial regressionWind powerNonparametric regressionTurbineSpline (mechanical)Curve fittingParametric statisticsRegression analysisNonparametric statisticsWind power forecastingSemiparametric regressionMultivariate adaptive regression splinesLocal regressionPolynomialComputer scienceRegressionStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringPower (physics)Electric power system
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes