MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560721843 · doi:10.1109/epec.2016.7771685

Modeled estimates of solar direct normal irradiance in Al-Hanakiyah, Saudi Arabia and Boulder, USA

2016· article· en· W2560721843 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emad Abyad, Christopher E. Valdivia, Joan E. Haysom, Ahmad Atieh, Karin Hinzer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsIrradianceMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmEnvironmental sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate knowledge of the solar resource is required for solar energy generation projects, including preferably data for both the direct normal (DNI) and diffuse horizontal (DHI) components of irradiance, but in many solar datasets, only a single global horizontal (GHI) may be available. This paper undertakes the evaluation of three models-Reindl*, BRL and DISC - which estimate DNI and DHI in such cases. The models are tested against actual data from Boulder, USA, and Al-Hanakiyah, Saudi Arabia. Generally, a good correlation between hourly measured or calculated DNI and hourly modeled DNI is observed for the three models in Boulder and Al-Hanakiyah. The three models overestimate DNI in Al_Hanakiyah while Reindl* and BRL model exhibit less bias for estimating DNI in Boulder. The results show that the BRL model outperforms other models in Boulder with RMSE of 121 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> and standard deviation (a) of 121 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> . Overestimation of DNI has been noticed in BRL and Reindl* models with values that exceed 1100 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> . On the other hand, Reindl* model's performance is better with MBE of -28 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> , MAE of 63 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> , and RMSE of 86 W/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> in Al-Hanakiyah. Other locations such as Ottawa, Canada and Ma'an, Jordan as well as DIRINT model will be included to evaluate the performance of each model under different weather conditions in the future.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207