MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Very Short-Term Wind Speed Prediction Techniques Using Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3209169461 on OpenAlexaff
Aman Samson Mogos, Md Salauddin, Xiaodong Liang, C. Y. Chung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean absolute percentage errorWind speedMean squared errorRandom forestStandard deviationComputer scienceStatisticsWind powerPrediction intervalMean absolute errorMoving averageTerm (time)Decision treeInterval (graph theory)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceMeteorologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind speed prediction plays an essential role in planning and operation of wind power systems. An accurate wind speed prediction can reduce costs and enhance the proper use of resources. Wind speed series have high nonlinearity and volatility. In this paper, data-driven models using machine learning (ML) algorithms have been developed to predict a very short-term wind speed. Historical wind speeds lagging up to 20 minutes with 1 minute time interval are used to predict the current and future (up to 5 minutes with L-minnte interval) wind speed. A performance comparative analysis of four ML algorithms including Multiple-Layer Perception Regressor (MLPR), Random Forest Regressor (RFR), K-nearest Neighbors Regressor (KNNR), and Decision Tree Regressor (DTR), is conducted, and their accuracy is evaluated by their R2 values, mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of MAE, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), SD of MAPE and root mean square error (RMSE). It is found that MLPR gives the best prediction accuracy of 95.3%.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207