MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177383502 · doi:10.1080/15435075.2021.1941043

Cloud cover-based models for estimation of global solar radiation: A review and case study

2021· review· en· W3177383502 on OpenAlexaffabout
Md Shamim Ahamed, Huiqing Guo, Karen Tanino

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Green Energy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud coverMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceEmpirical modellingAngstromRadiationSunshine durationPhotovoltaicsSolar energyAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingPhotovoltaic systemCloud computingComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringSimulationPhysicsRelative humidity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar radiation data are essential information for designing and studying various engineering systems such as building thermal performance, photovoltaics, solar thermal systems, and passive solar design. Several empirical models have been developed to simulate the available solar radiation on the earth’s surface. This article presents a comprehensive review of cloud cover-based solar radiation models (CSRMs) for estimating the hourly global solar radiation (GSR). Many of these models have been developed according to the Angstrom–Prescott relationship for solar radiation and are mainly used to estimate the monthly average daily total solar radiation. Based on the comprehensive review of CSRMs, it could be stated that the Kasten-Czeplak model and the Lam-Li model are comparatively straightforward and precise for estimating the hourly GSR. Furthermore, the study evaluated the selected model (Lam-Li model) to estimate the hourly GSR on the horizontal surfaces for four different cities in Canada. Results revealed that the original Lam-Li model performs within an acceptable range based on the statistical indices (R2 = 0.77–0.80 and rRMSE = 39.7–44.0%); however, the performance of the newly modified model (M2) from this study performs significantly better (R2 = 0.8–0.82 and rRMSE = 3.65–39.5%) than the original model (M1).

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Green EnergySame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207