Applying triple collocation for verifying wind resource measurements and reanalysis data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dual comparisons or dual collocation, respectively, is a standard approach in wind data analysis, and particularly in the wind energy resource assessment context, for comparing and relating two time series from different sources describing the same quantity as e.g. the wind speed at a specific height over a certain period of time. This comparison can be used to validate a data source, or to derive a correction for one of the two datasets. Though being widely used, dual collocation comes with inherent flaws which are partly unknown or ignored. A major problem is that dual collocation requires the definition of a reference in advance. Triple collocation may instead allow for a more objective and comprehensive evaluation, where (three) suitable data sources are available, and possibly help to identify which datasets are most suited to represent the relevant wind resource. In this study, we apply the triple collocation methodology to two typical wind resource assessment test cases. Results are promising in providing more information on the analysed datasets and improving the use of different types of data for wind resource assessment in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".