Proposing an Ontology Model for Planning Photovoltaic Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a photovoltaic (PV) system is negatively affected when operating under shading conditions. Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) systems are used to overcome this hurdle. Designing an efficient MPPT-based controller requires knowledge about power conversion in PV systems. However, it is difficult for nontechnical solar energy consumers to define different parameters of the controller and deal with distinct sources of data related to the planning. Semantic Web technologies enable us to improve knowledge representation, sharing, and reusing of relevant information generated by various sources. In this work, we propose a knowledge-based model representing key concepts associated with an MPPT-based controller. The model is featured with Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL), allowing the system planner to extract information about power reductions caused by snow and several airborne particles. The proposed ontology, named MPPT-On, is validated through a case study designed by the System Advisor Model (SAM). It acts as a decision support system and facilitate the process of planning PV projects for non-technical practitioners. Moreover, the presented rule-based system can be reused and shared among the solar energy community to adjust the power estimations reported by PV planning tools especially for snowy months and polluted environments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".