MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971263704 · doi:10.1364/ao.51.006848

Planar waveguide concentrator used with a seasonal tracker

2012· article· en· W1971263704 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Optique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrolensOpticsConcentratorTracking (education)Solar trackerPlanarNonimaging opticsMaterials scienceWaveguideSlabAcceptance angleRoofIrradianceOptoelectronicsPhotovoltaic systemComputer scienceLens (geology)PhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar concentrators offer good promise for reducing the cost of solar power. Planar waveguides equipped with a microlens slab have already been proposed as an excellent approach to produce medium to high concentration levels. Instead, we suggest the use of a cylindrical microlens array to get useful concentration without tracking during the day. To use only a seasonal tracking system and get the highest possible concentration, cylindrical microlenses are placed in the east-west orientation. Our new design has an acceptance angle in the north-south direction of ±9° and ±54° in the east-west axis. Simulation of our optimized system achieves a 4.6× average concentration level from 8:30 to 16:30 with a maximum of 8.1× and 80% optical efficiency. The low-cost advantage of waveguide-based solar concentrators could support their use in roof-mounted solar panels and eliminate the need for an expensive and heavy active tracker.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.177 · 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