MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411027934 · doi:10.3390/en18112960

Leveraging AI for Sustainable Energy Development in Solar Power Plants Operating Under Shading Conditions

2025· article· en· W4411027934 on OpenAlexaff
Farhad Khosrojerdi, Stéphane Gagnon, Raul Valverde

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingSustainable energySolar energySolar powerSustainable developmentPower (physics)Energy (signal processing)Environmental scienceEnvironmental economicsRenewable energyPhotovoltaic systemArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineering physicsAutomotive engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsEconomicsPhysicsComputer graphics (images)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a photovoltaic (PV) system, shading caused by weather and environmental factors can significantly impact electricity production. For over a decade, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been applied to enhance energy production efficiency in the solar energy sector. This paper demonstrates how AI-based control systems can improve energy output in a solar power plant under shading conditions. The findings highlight that AI contributes to the sustainable development of the solar power sector. Specifically, maximum power point tracking (MPPT) control systems, utilizing metaheuristic and computer-based algorithms, enable PV arrays to mitigate the impacts of shading effectively. The effect of shading on a PV module is also simulated using MATLAB R2018b. Using actual PV data from a solar power plant, power outputs are compared in two scenarios: (I) PV systems without a control system and (II) PV arrays equipped with MPPT boards. The System Advisor Model (SAM) is employed to calculate the monthly energy output of the case study. The results confirm that PV systems using MPPT technology generate significantly more monthly energy compared to those without MPPTs.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207