Modeling and comparative analysis of floating and groundmounted photovoltaic plants on the Xingu River, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study compares two 15 kWp photovoltaic power plants—one installed on the ground and the other on a fixed floating structure on the Xingu River (PA/Brazil)—comprising monofacial and bifacial modules. Experimental data were obtained via Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) over 62 days, and simulations were conducted using the System Advisor Model (SAM) software based on climate data from the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB). To establish a unitary comparison basis for the daily energy generated by each plant, the ground-mounted system with monofacial panels was used as a reference. In this way, the bifacial ground installation and the monofacial floating system showed an average performance of 1.02, while the bifacial floating plant recorded an average performance of 0.99. SAM demonstrated a tendency to overestimate generation, with errors of up to 18.7% in some months, but was effective in identifying seasonal patterns. The floating plant proved competitive, benefiting from passive cooling, although it was subject to losses due to condensation and low surface reflectance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".