Benchmarking on improvement and site-adaptation techniques for modeled solar radiation datasets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-accuracy solar radiation data are needed in almost every solar energy project for bankability. Time series of solar irradiance components that spans decades can be supplied by satellite-derived irradiance or by reanalysis models, with very various types of uncertainty associated to the specific approaches taken and quality of boundary conditions information. In order to improve the reliability of these modeled datasets, comparison with ground measurements over a short period of time can be used for correcting some aspects, bias mainly, of the modeled data by using different methodologies; this procedure is known as site adaptation. Therefore, a benchmarking exercise that uses different site adaptation techniques was proposed within the Task 16 IEA-PVPS activities. In this work, over ten different site-adaptation techniques have been used for assessing the accuracy improvement, using ten different datasets covering both satellite-derived and reanalysis solar radiation data. The effectiveness of these methods is found not universal or spatially homogeneous, but in general, it can be stated that significant improvements can be achieved eventually in most sites and datasets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it