MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808230357 · doi:10.1109/tste.2018.2846661

Tidal Current and Level Uncertainty Prediction via Adaptive Linear Programming

2018· article· en· W2808230357 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobust optimizationComputer scienceExtreme learning machineMathematical optimizationQuantileQuantile regressionLinear programmingWeightingSimplex algorithmTidal powerMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatisticsEngineeringMachine learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-term uncertainty prediction modeling of tidal power generation supports power systems in reserve and regulation markets. In tidal power generation via various tidal energy harvesting technologies, tidal current and level are the most influential factors. This paper addresses a nonparametric prediction interval (NPI)-based uncertainty model thereof. The proposed model adapts a bi-level optimization formulation, based on extreme learning machine (ELM) prediction engine and quantile regression (QR). The quantile probabilities are asymmetrically and adaptively chosen in the upper level optimization to make prediction intervals sharper for a specific reliability level (RL). Besides, the training process of ELM is improved by adaptively selecting ELM's hidden neurons via upper level optimization. The lower level optimization finds ELM's output weighting coefficients through linear programming of QR. The heuristic optimization, consisting of gray wolf optimizer and simplex method, is designed to facilitate the NPI with high exploration and exploitation capabilities in upper level optimization. The performance of the proposed NPI is examined using empirical data recorded in three different sites, located in North America. The results of case studies show that the proposed NPI can provide sharper PIs in comparison to the well-tailored rival models whilst a prespecified RL criterion is met.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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