MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574672608 · doi:10.2172/1055457

Ocean Thermal Extractable Energy Visualization (Final Technical Report)

2012· report· en· W1574672608 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Ascari, Howard P. Hanson, Lynn T. Rauchenstein, James Van Zwieten, D. Bharathan, Donna Heimiller, Nicholas Langle, G. Scott, James T. Potemra, Nicholas John Nagurny, Eugene Jansen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisVisualizationGeographic information systemRenewable energyResource (disambiguation)Environmental scienceGraphical user interfaceComputer scienceSoftwareThermal energyEnergy modelingRemote sensingDatabaseEfficient energy useEngineeringGeographyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ocean Thermal Extractable Energy Visualization (OTEEV) project focuses on assessing the Maximum Practicably Extractable Energy (MPEE) from the world's ocean thermal resources. MPEE is defined as being sustainable and technically feasible, given today's state-of-the-art ocean energy technology. Under this project the OTEEV team developed a comprehensive Geospatial Information System (GIS) dataset and software tool, and used the tool to provide a meaningful assessment of MPEE from the global and domestic U.S. ocean thermal resources. The OTEEV project leverages existing NREL renewable energy GIS technologies and integrates extractable energy estimated from quality-controlled data and projected optimal achievable energy conversion rates. Input data are synthesized from a broad range of existing in-situ measurements and ground-truthed numerical models with temporal and spatial resolutions sufficient to reflect the local resource. Energy production rates are calculated for regions based on conversion rates estimated for current technology, local energy density of the resource, and sustainable resource extraction. Plant spacing and maximum production rates are then estimated based on a default plant size and transmission mechanisms. The resulting data are organized, displayed, and accessed using a multi-layered GIS mapping tool, http://maps.nrel.gov/mhk_atlas with a user-friendly graphical user interface.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0160.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207