MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002316245 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.37.6.617

Effects of Wind Turbine Rotor Modelling on Nacelle Anemometry

2013· article· en· W2002316245 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNacelleTurbineAnemometerActuatorRotor (electric)Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulenceMechanicsWakeWind speedWind powerMarine engineeringEnvironmental sciencePhysicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringControl theory (sociology)MeteorologyComputer scienceMechanical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical analysis of the flow near the nacelles of two wind turbines is performed through 3D RANS simulations with the k-ω sst turbulence model. The rotor is modeled using three approaches: two techniques based on the actuator disk and one based on the actuator line. The effects of the rotor representation on the predicted flow at the location of the nacelle anemometer are quantified. In general, agreement with measurements is better for the actuator line than the actuator disk which tends to underestimate the wind speed in the very near wake. At low wind speeds, the three rotor modelling techniques predict nearly identical nacelle transfer functions; differences appear at higher wind speed where the the actuator line is slightly better compared to the other techniques.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.160 · 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