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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207