Benefits of a multimodel ensemble for hub‐height wind prediction in mountainous terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While numerical weather prediction models can be used to estimate future wind power, no single model is perfect. A better approach is to run many models (an ensemble) and use the average to estimate future wind speeds. The goal of this manuscript is to demonstrate the benefits of using a multimodel ensemble to predict wind speeds at wind‐turbine hub heights. We do this for a 1‐year period at 4 wind farms in mountainous terrain. The ensemble‐mean forecast has higher accuracy than the climatology forecast until a forecast horizon of 6.5 days. The ensemble‐mean forecast has higher correlation to the observations than the climatology forecast has to the observations through the 7‐day forecast horizon tested. Use of the ensemble‐mean forecast results in at least a 1‐ to 2‐day skill advantage (increase in time that a forecast remains more skilled than climatology) over use of a single, deterministic ensemble member for both forecast accuracy and correlation. For probabilistic forecasts, use of the multimodel ensemble mean is most beneficial to improvements in probabilistic sharpness (narrowing of uncertainty). A comparison of Weather Research and Forecasting model forecasts initialized by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Global Forecast System and North American Mesoscale models, the Canadian Meteorological Centre Global Deterministic Prediction System, and Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center Navy Global Environmental Model showed that the Canadian Meteorological Centre Global Deterministic Prediction System provided the best initial conditions for the locations tested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".