MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889205082 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2018.8447846

Uncertainty Estimation in Wind Power Forecasts Using Monte Carlo Simulations

2018· article· en· W2889205082 on OpenAlexaffabout
Someshwar Singh, James Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodWind speedWind powerRealization (probability)Computer scienceGaussianStochastic processProbability distributionMeteorologySimulationStatisticsAlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our earlier paper [9] we took the histories of wind speed forecasts and actual wind speed data available from Environment Canada and presented that the hourly wind speed forecast error distributions are nearly Gaussian in nature. In this paper we used the hourly error distribution to model a representative wind-speed realization as the sum of a deterministic term and a stochastic term. The deterministic term was the forecast provided by Environment Canada, while the stochastic component, the error in the forecast, was modeled as a first-order gaussian markov process. Wind-speed realizations were. Then input to a wind generator model developed in MATLAB®/Simulink®to get wind power realizations. The uncertainties in the wind speed-realizations were transferred to the wind power realizations as well. Monte Carlo Simulations were performed to assess likely range of wind power production. It is shown that how the statistics of wind power prediction obtained by performing Monte Carlo Simulation gave an idea of the risk involved in wind power production.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207