MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559690898 · doi:10.1109/pvsc.2016.7749752

Multi-year ground-based irradiance dataset in a northern urban climate

2016· article· en· W2559690898 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joan E. Haysom, Patrick McVey-White, L. de la Salle, Karin Hinzer, Henry Schriemer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradiancePyranometerEnvironmental scienceSatelliteRemote sensingMeteorologyMean squared errorStatisticsMathematicsGeographyEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multi-year irradiance dataset has been collected using secondary standard pyrheliometer and pyranometers at a Canadian urban test site. Detailed screening algorithms, instrument bias corrections, and uncertainty analyses were undertaken to produce a high accuracy, validated dataset for global horizontal irradiance (GHI), direct normal irradiance (DNI) and diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI). The inter-comparison of the three instruments is included within a study of the DHI shadowband correction model, and confirms agreement with mean bias errors less than 4%. Comparative studies of measurements with satellite data were undertaken, and the agreement for GHI daily values with NASA satellite data exhibited a relative mean bias error (rMBE) of -1.7% and a relative root mean squared error (rRMSE) of 24.3%. The agreement for DNI hourly values in comparison to SolarAnywhere v3 was -1.2% with an rRMSE of 8.8%. In all three statistical analyses, the agreements are within the instrumental uncertainty, providing very strong validations of the ground-based dataset and of the accuracy of the satellite-derived data. Frequency distribution versus DNI for ground and satellite data are found to have some differences in-line with the nature of their measurement characteristics.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207