MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951580868 · doi:10.5194/asr-16-103-2019

Verifying the spatial consistency of the CAMS Radiation Service and HelioClim-3 satellite-derived databases of solar radiation using a dense network of measuring stations: the case of The Netherlands

2019· article· en· W2951580868 on OpenAlexaff
Mathilde Marchand, Mireille Lefèvre, Laurent Saboret, Etienne Wey, Lucien Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in science and research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Environmental scienceIrradianceDatabaseSatelliteMeteorologyStandard deviationRemote sensingComputer scienceStatisticsGeographyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work deals with two well-known databases of hourly mean of solar irradiance that are derived from satellite imagery: the CAMS Radiation Service version 3.2, abbreviated as CAMS-Rad and part of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service version 3.2 (CAMS), and the HelioClim-3 version 5, abbreviated as HC3v5. It adds up to the continuous documentation of these two databases that demonstrates that both databases capture the temporal and spatial variability of the solar radiation and are reliable sources of data. The spatial consistency of the uncertainties of these databases is verified against measurements performed within a dense network of ground stations in the Netherlands from the Royal Meteorological Institute KNMI for the period 2014–2017. For the CAMS-Rad database, the correlation coefficients between ground measurements and estimates are around 0.94–0.97 for irradiance E and 0.85–0.89 for clearness index KT . The bias ranges between −12 and 27 W m −2 (−4 % and 10 %). The standard deviation for E is almost constant at all stations and around 67 W m −2 (24 %) except at Valkenburg (57 W m −2 , 20 %) and De Bilt (73 W m −2 , 27 %). For this database, the statistical indicators are constant at inland stations showing the spatial consistency of the performances of CAMS-Rad dataset. At seashore stations, statistical indicators are more variable. The sea proximity influences CAMS-Rad performances and a weak spatial consistency is observed near seashore. For the HC3v5 database, the correlation coefficients are around 0.96–0.98 for E and 0.86–0.91 for KT . The bias ranges between −3 and 15 W m −2 (−1 % and 5 %). The standard deviation ranges between 48 (17 %) and 60 W m −2 (22 %). It is constant at inland stations and around 54 W m −2 (20 %) with peaks at Ell (59 W m −2 , 21 %) and De Bilt (60 W m −2 , 22 %). For this database, statistical indicators are constant at all stations as a whole, showing a strong spatial consistency of uncertainties. An exception is the standard deviation which tends to decrease at the seashore stations and is close to 50 W m −2 (17 %); this could be related to the general trend of decreasing standard deviation with increasing KT already reported in the scientific literature. As a whole, it is found that both databases are reliable sources on solar radiation in the Netherlands.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in science and researchSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207