MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591353763

Best practice guidelines for tank testing of wave energy converters

2009· article· en· W1591353763 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Grégory Payne, Jamie Taylor, David Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueStrathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's University BelfastQueen's UniversityScottish Funding Council
KeywordsWave energy converterMarine engineeringEnergy (signal processing)Energy transformationEngineeringSubmarine pipelineCurrent (fluid)ConvertersWave tankMechanical engineeringReliability engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsMechanicsGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental tank testing is a key aspect of wave energy conversion research. The performance of designs can be assessed in an accessible and controlled environment and at a fraction of the cost of sea trials. Wave energy converter (WEC) tank testing is complex and has its own specificities compared with model testing of ships and offshore structures. This largely reflects the fact that the main quantity of interest is wave energy: how much is available and how much is harvested by the model. This paper provides an extensive overview of the various aspects of WEC tank testing. These are divided into three categories: physical model, measurements, and wave generation. For each of them, current best practice guidelines are given.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0130.005
Research integrity0.0130.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.018

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde)Same topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207