Integration of Wind and Hydropower Systems: Results of IEA Wind Task 24
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May of 2004, the IEA Wind Implementing Agreement (IA) established R&D Task 24, “Integration of Wind and Hydropower Systems.” Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States joined Task 24 with the goal of collaborating in the study of wind integration in a variety of electrical system configurations (load, generation, and transmission); hydro system configurations and characteristics; and market and operational configurations. Representing these countries were utilities and research organizations with the intent to understand the potential for and limiting factors in integrating wind into systems with hydropower. Case studies that analyze the feasibility, benefits, detriments, and costs of specific wind-hydro integration projects were the mechanism through which the goals of the task were addressed. The purpose of this article is to summarize the framework within which these studies were performed, and to present the key results and the general conclusions of the Task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it