Smart Urban Wind Power Forecasting: Integrating Weibull Distribution, Recurrent Neural Networks, and Numerical Weather Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design, operational planning, and integration of wind power plants with other renewables and the grid face challenges attributed to the intermittent nature of wind power generation. Addressing this issue necessitates the development of a smart wind power (and in particular wind speed) forecasting approach. This is a complex task due to substantial fluctuations in wind speed. To overcome the inherent stochastic nature of wind speed and mitigate related challenges, traditionally, numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are employed for wind speed forecasting. However, the applicability of NWP models is limited to short-term forecasting due to their computational constraints. In this study, a hybrid AI-based approach is proposed to improve forecast accuracy over a 48 h horizon for the city of Montreal. The results demonstrate that by integrating the probability distribution of wind speed with a deep learning model, the forecasted values align closely with the observed values in terms of seasonality and trend, exhibiting enhanced accuracy. Evaluation metrics reveal a substantial reduction in the root mean squared error (13–31%) across three prediction horizons (summer, fall, and winter) compared to a single long, short-term memory model. Furthermore, integrating the improved model with the numerical weather prediction model yields increased accuracy and decreased error compared to the LSTM–Weibull model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".