Towards a framework selection for assessing the performance of photovoltaic solar power plants: criteria determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mastery of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the realm of photovoltaic solar power plants is pivotal for evaluating their effectiveness and fine-tuning their operational efficiency. The assessment of these plants' performance has con-sistently stood as a focal point in scientific research. Nevertheless, the investigation into the process of selecting a framework for classifying KPIs, particularly through their categorization based on criteria, sub-criteria, or aspects, has been relatively limited in research. This article addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive literature review on various KPIs and, drawing upon both literature and practical experience, formulating a set of criteria to serve as the foundation for a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method. This intricate taxonomic framework enhances the understanding of infrastructure performance for stakeholders in the solar industry. By streamlining decision-making, it simplifies the selection of KPIs tailored to specific requirements, thus mitigating the complexity arising from the abundance of KPIs in the literature. As a result, decision-makers can make well-informed choices regarding the monitoring and evaluation framework that best suits the performance goals of their solar plant.
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 | 0.046 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".