Evaluation of Eleven Numerical Methods for Determining Weibull Parameters for Wind Energy Generation in the Caribbean Region of Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two-parameter Weibull probability density function (PDF) is widely utilized by different researchers and engineers to fit wind speed data for statistical analysis and modeling. The characterization of wind resources in the frequency and probability domain is necessary to estimate the power output potential of new wind energy projects. Considering that exist a variety of Weibull equations evidenced in the literature review, this article evaluates 11 different methods to calculate the shape and scale parameters of the Weibull PDF. In this sense, it was written an algorithm within a Matlab function that solves the 11 methods for calculating the Weibull PDF parameters. Wind speed data extracted from the ERA5 database was used as input data for applying the proposed algorithm, and statistical parameters such as the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), the Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE), and chi-square test (X2) we utilized for assessing the performance of each one of the 11 methods for modeling the wind distribution. The statistical results pointed that the numerical iteration methods (e.g. maximum likelihood method) showed better results than parameterized equations such as the Graphical Method, hence, this research recommends the implicit methods for determining Weibull PDF parameters of wind speed data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".