MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092927107 · doi:10.1260/095830507782088721

The Potential for Wind Energy Meeting Electricity Needs on Vancouver Island

2007· article· en· W2092927107 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Prescott, G. Cornelis van Kooten, Hui Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Environment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerIntermittencyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyElectricityRenewable energyElectricity demandGridPower (physics)Small islandElectricity generationNatural resource economicsGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental protectionEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an in-depth analysis of power supply and demand on Vancouver Island is used to provide information about the optimal allocation of power across ‘generating’ sources and to investigate the economics of wind generation and penetrability into the Island grid. The methodology developed can be extended to a region much larger than Vancouver Island. Results from the model indicate that Vancouver Island could experience blackouts in the near future unless greater name-plate capacity is developed. While wind-generated energy has the ability to contribute to the Island's power needs, the problem with wind power is its intermittency. The results indicate that wind power may not be able to prevent shortfalls, regardless of the overall name-plate capacity of the wind turbines. Further, costs of reducing CO 2 emissions using wind power are unacceptably large, perhaps more than $100 per tCO 2 , although this might be attributable to the mix of power sources making up the Island's grid.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & EnvironmentSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207