MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889084344 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2018.8447635

Wind Speed Time Series Predicted by Neural Network

2018· article· en· W2889084344 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amir Ahadi, Xiaodong Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind speedArtificial neural networkAutoregressive–moving-average modelTime seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Wind powerComputer scienceAutoregressive modelConjugate gradient methodMoving averageControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important step for generation adequacy evacuation in power system planning involving wind farms is to develop an accurate wind speed model for a site. Auto-regressive Moving Average (ARMA) model is a most common approach for predicting future wind speeds. This method, however, has some drawback, for example, the probability distribution of ARMA model might follow a Normal distribution with negative wind speeds. In this paper, a neural network based approach is proposed for wind speed time series prediction, and three training algorithms, Bayesian Regularization, Levenberg Marquardt, and Scaled Conjugate Gradient, are considered. The wind speed data in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, are used in the case study to validate the proposed approach. The results obtained from the neural network approach are compared with that from the ARMA model. It is found that the neural network approach provides more accurate wind speed time series prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207