MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545081442

A Metropolitan Wind Resource Assessment for Bangkok, Thailand Part 2: GIS Analysis and Technical Wind Resource Potential

2013· article· en· W1545081442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carina P. Paton, Kasemsan Manomaiphiboon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Energy and Environment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerMetropolitan areaTurbineResource (disambiguation)Environmental scienceElectricityWork (physics)MeteorologyWind speedQuarter (Canadian coin)Electricity generationGeographyEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)Computer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the second part of the work entitled “A Metropolitan Wind Resource Assessment for Bangkok, Thailand.” It estimates the technical potential for electricity generation from wind energy and suggests how it should be utilized, based on wind power density results from the first paper. Here, a number GIS (geographical information system) layers were prepared to exclude areas deemed not suitable for turbine installation, and they were used with the developed wind resource maps to estimate annual energy production (AEP) from winds. It was found that largest contributions to total AEP come from very small turbine installations in low density urban, medium-to-high density urban, and non-urban areas (1,453, 700, and 689 GWh, respectively). Potential turbine capacity factors are most promising for very small turbines installed on tall buildings (an estimated 25-35%). The total AEP given by wind energy over the province was found to be 3,719 GWh, equivalent to up to 10% of total consumption in the province. This amount of energy is considered substantial from an economic viewpoint since Bangkok alone already shares up to approximately a quarter of national electricity consumption.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Energy and EnvironmentSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207