Benefits of a multimodel ensemble for hub‐height wind prediction in mountainous terrain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it