MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067318858 · doi:10.3390/electronics3010001

Compressed Air Energy Storage System Control and Performance Assessment Using Energy Harvested Index

2014· article· en· W2067318858 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

VenueElectronics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsCompressed air energy storageEnergy storageRenewable energyWind powerEnergy (signal processing)Index (typography)Compressed airAutomotive engineeringProcess engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)Electrical engineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a new concept for control and performance assessment of compressed air energy storage (CAES) systems in a hybrid energy system is introduced. The proposed criterion, based on the concept of energy harvest index (HEI), measures the capability of a storage system to capture renewable energy. The overall efficiency of the CAES system and optimum control and design from the technical and economic point of view is presented. A possible application of this idea is an isolated community with significant wind energy resource. A case study reveals the usefulness of the proposed criterion in design, control and implementation of a small CAES system in a hybrid power system (HPM) for an isolated community. Energy harvested index and its effectiveness in increasing the wind penetration rate in the total energy production is discussed.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.170 · 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