WRF Hub-Height Wind Forecast Sensitivity to PBL Scheme, Grid Length, and Initial Condition Choice in Complex Terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluates the sensitivity of wind turbine hub-height wind speed forecasts to the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme, grid length, and initial condition selection in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model over complex terrain. Eight PBL schemes available for the WRF-ARW dynamical core were tested with initial conditions sources from the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model and Global Forecast System (GFS) to produce short-term wind speed forecasts. The largest improvements in forecast accuracy primarily depended on the grid length or PBL scheme choice, although the most important factor varied by location, season, time of day, and bias-correction application. Aggregated over all locations, the Asymmetric Convective Model, version 2 (ACM2) PBL scheme provided the best forecast accuracy, particularly for the 12-km grid length. Other PBL schemes and grid lengths, however, did perform better than the ACM2 scheme for individual seasons or locations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".