MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945864667 · doi:10.3390/en12101998

Estimation of the Daily Variability of Aggregate Wind Power Generation in Alberta, Canada

2019· article· en· W2945864667 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yilan Luo, Deniz Sezer, David Wood, Mingkuan Wu, Hamidreza Zareipour

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWind powerKrigingCovarianceMeteorologyAggregate (composite)GaussianEconometricsVariogramCovariance functionWind speedEnvironmental scienceStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a hierarchy of increasingly complex statistical models for wind power generation in Alberta applied to wind power production data that are publicly available. The models are based on combining spatial and temporal correlations. We apply the method of Gaussian random fields to analyze the wind power time series of the 19 existing wind farms in Alberta. Following the work of Gneiting et al., three space-time models are used: Stationary, Separability, and Full Symmetry. We build several spatio-temporal covariance function estimates with increasing complexity: separable, non-separable and symmetric, and non-separable and non-symmetric. We compare the performance of the models using kriging predictions and prediction intervals for both the existing wind farms and a new farm in Alberta. It is shown that the spatial correlation in the models captures the predominantly westerly prevailing wind direction. We use the selected model to forecast the mean and the standard deviation of the future aggregate wind power generation of Alberta and investigate new wind farm siting on the basis of reducing aggregate variability.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207