Data Transferability and Collection Consistency in Marine Renewable Energy
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Concerns about the potential effects of tidal turbines and wave energy devices on the marine environment continue to slow siting and permitting/consenting of single devices and arrays worldwide. While research studies and early results from post-installation monitoring over the past decade have informed interactions between marine renewable energy (MRE) devices, marine animals, and habitats, regulators still demonstrate considerable reluctance to accelerate the permitting/consenting process for devices and arrays. Furthermore, the MRE industry is struggling with the high costs of baseline assessments and post-installation monitoring, as well as long timelines for obtaining permits, which leads to uncertainty and risk related to project financing. Regulators require assessment and monitoring information to allow them to carry out the necessary analyses to describe, permit/consent, and manage the environmental risks associated with new MRE technologies and new uses of ocean space. One way to reduce risks to the industry and the environment and to allow for acceleration of the permitting/consenting process could be to transfer learning, analyses, and data sets from one country to another, among projects, and across jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, data are collected around early-stage MRE devices using many different methods, instruments, and measurement scales. If similar parameters and accessible methods of data collection were used for baseline assessments and post-installation monitoring around all early-stage devices and MRE developments, the results would be more readily comparable. This comparability would lead to a decrease in scientific uncertainty and support a common understanding of the risk of MRE devices to the marine environment. This in turn would facilitate more efficient and shorter permitting/consenting processes, which would decrease the financial risk for MRE project development. As a means of addressing the concept of transferring data (information, learning, analyses, and data sets) among projects and collecting data consistently, Annex IV has developed a data transferability process that has been socialized with the MRE community, which includes regulators, industry, developers, consultants, and researchers. The data transferability process consists of five components: 1. A Data Transferability Framework brings together data sets in an organized fashion, compares the applicability of each data set for use on other projects, and guides the process of data transfer 2. A Data Collection Consistency Table provides preferred measurement methods or processes, reporting units, and the most common methods of analysis or interpretation and use of data 3. A Monitoring Data Sets Discoverability Matrix allows a practitioner to discover data sets based on the approach presented in the Framework 4. Best Management Practices (BMPs) include five BMPs related to data transferability and collection consistency 5. An Implementation Plan presents an approach for implementing and applying the data transferability process. This report documents the background and development of the data transferability process and associated components and summarizes the next steps needed to successfully implement and apply the data transferability process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle