MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023460280 · doi:10.1109/jphotov.2020.2987158

Snow Loss Prediction for Photovoltaic Farms Using Computational Intelligence Techniques

2020· article· en· W3023460280 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Behzad Hashemi, Ana-Maria Creţu, Shamsodin Taheri

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Photovoltaics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnowPhotovoltaic systemComputer scienceRandom forestMachine learningHyperparameterArtificial neural networkSupport vector machineMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the recent widespread deployment of Photovoltaic (PV) panels in the northern snow-prone areas, performance analysis of these panels is getting much more importance. Partial or full reduction in energy yield due to snow accumulation on the surface of PV panels, which is referred to as snow loss, reduces their operational efficiency. Developing intelligent algorithms to accurately predict the future snow loss of PV farms is addressed in this article for the first time. The article proposes daily snow loss prediction models using machine learning algorithms solely based on meteorological data. The algorithms include regression trees, gradient boosted trees, random forest, feed-forward and recurrent artificial neural networks, and support vector machines. The prediction models are built based on the snow loss of a PV farm located in Ontario, Canada which is calculated using a 3-stage model and hourly data records over a 4-year period. The stages of the aforementioned model consist of: stage I: yield determination, stage II: power loss calculation, and stage III: snow loss extraction. The functionality of the proposed prediction models is validated over the historical data and the optimal hyperparameters are selected for each model to achieve the best results. Among all the models, gradient boosted trees obtained the minimum prediction error and thus the best performance. The results achieved prove the effectiveness of the proposed models for the prediction of daily snow loss of PV farms.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of PhotovoltaicsSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207