MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Short-term Photovoltaic Power Prediction based on Sparse Representation Method

2021· article· en· W3128697996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan Zheng, Jun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSparse approximationPreprocessorPhotovoltaic systemData pre-processingAdaptabilityMATLABData miningTerm (time)Coding (social sciences)Power (physics)Reliability (semiconductor)Wind powerArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the research of solar power prediction, providing accurate prediction data in real time is one of the most effective means to enhance the capacity of wind power acceptance and improve the power reliability and economy. The existing prediction models based on statistical methods are often unavoidable in data preprocessing and model training stage, and their adaptive ability needs to be improved. Considering that the sparse coding method does not require model training, and has the characteristics of high solving efficiency and strong self-adaptability, an online solar energy prediction model using sparse coding is proposed.Firstly, the historical time series data is composed of input-output pairs with delay, and the dictionary is respectively constructed in atomic form. Then, the sparse weight is calculated for the delay input data vector to be predicted, and the corresponding predicted output is obtained by borrowing the dictionary. Taking the actual solar power data of Alberta, Canada as sample, the simulation was carried out in MATLAB. The simulation results show that the model can accurately predict the solar power and improve the effectiveness and practicability of the prediction

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207