MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955529518 · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.047

Chaotic wind power time series prediction via switching data-driven modes

2019· article· en· W2955529518 on OpenAlexaff
Heming Huang, Yusen He, Zhenhao Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable Energy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermittencyWind powerMarkov chainChaoticSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesWind speedComputer sciencePower (physics)Hidden Markov modelData miningEngineeringMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To schedule wind power efficiently and to mitigate the adverse effects caused by wind's intermittency and variability, an advanced wind power prediction model is proposed in this paper. This model is a combined model via switching different data-driven chaotic time series models. First, inputs of this model come from the reconstructed data based on the chaotic characteristics of wind power time series. Second, three different data mining algorithms are used to construct wind power prediction models individually. To obtain a regime for switching optimal models, a Markov chain is trained. Then, weights of different data-driven modes are calculated by the Markov chain switching regime, and used in the final combined model for wind power prediction. The industrial data from actual wind farms is studied. Results of the proposed model are compared with that of non-reconstructed input data, traditional data-driven models and two typical combined models. These results validate the superiority of proposed model on improving wind power prediction accuracy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations79
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable EnergySame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207