MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388642301 · doi:10.1109/jphotov.2023.3326564

Analysis and Modeling of CPV Performance Loss Factors in Humid Continental Climate

2023· article· en· W4388642301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Photovoltaics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Grenoble Alpes
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSnowMean squared errorFrost (temperature)Climate systemClimatologyMeteorologyClimate modelPhotovoltaic systemClimate changeAtmospheric sciencesGeologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local climate and environmental conditions can impact the performance of concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) systems. There is a lack of experimental performance analysis of CPV systems, especially in the region with high snowfall and very low temperature in winters. In this article, we present first a CPV system performance in humid continental climate and identify snow and frost as sources of losses that are not considered in conventional predictive models. We propose then a method to account for the negative effect of snow and frost on the system, by adding monthly soiling factors in the predictive model. The monthly soiling factors are modeled based on average monthly snow fall and ambient temperature. Applying this method, decrease in root-mean-square error (RMSE) between predicted and actual energy production from 24.51 to 5.07% validates our model in humid continental climate for CPV systems.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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