MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807120282 · doi:10.1109/irec.2018.8362453

Distributions of wind speed in a northern environment

2018· article· en· W2807120282 on OpenAlexaffabout
Taha B. M. J. Ouarda, Christian Charron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind speedProbability density functionWind powerProbability distributionRenewable energyMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceHomogeneousWind profile power lawComputer scienceStatisticsStatistical physicsMathematicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the assessment of wind energy potential, it is necessary to know the distribution of wind speed at sites of interest. Usually, a probability density function (pdf) is fit to observed wind speed data. In the present work we study the distribution of wind speed in the province of Québec (Canada), a region with enormous wind energy potential and which is observing increasing interest in this renewable energy source. To identify the most appropriate distribution for the selected stations we use the method of L-moment ratio diagram which was recently proposed in the literature. The advantages of this approach are that it is simple to apply and it allows an easy comparison of the fit of several pdfs for several stations on a single diagram. Previous studies have shown that it is frequent for wind speed data to present bimodal distributions for which conventional one-component pdfs are not appropriate. On the other hand, mixture distributions were proven to be efficient to model such distributions. Homogeneous and heterogeneous mixture distributions are also used in the present study to model wind speeds and the advantages of these mixture distributions are illustrated and discussed.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207