MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130083961 · doi:10.2172/807901

Technical Status Report for US Wind Farmers Network

2003· report· en· W2130083961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Daniels

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicationQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Theme (computing)BusinessWind powerPoint (geometry)Public relationsPrincipal (computer security)MarketingEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyAdvertisingWorld Wide WebComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theme of the work in this quarter was community-based wind and locally owned wind projects. The work Windustry has done is just beginning to touch the heart of the matter for a hugely interested audience of rural landowners and rural communities. We revised and published a Windustry Newsletter on two farmer owned wind projects called Minwind I and Minwind II. This article was largely researched and written last quarter but the principal individuals that organized the wind projects didn't want any more farmers calling them up than they already had, so they urged us to put a hold on the article or not publish it. This presented a unique problem for Windustry. Up to this point, we had not dealt with generating too much attention for a wind energy project. The story of a group of farmers and individuals pooling their resources for two locally owned commercial-scale wind projects is very compelling and the organizers of the projects were getting a great deal of attention from other farmers that want more details on the project. However, the organizers committed a large amount of their own resources toward the set up of this project which took many hours with their legal counsel and they did not have the capacity or the desire to provide answers for all the other farmers and individuals who were requesting information. Windustry worked with the business entity and did not publish the newsletter until we resolved some of the problems with the high level of interest in this project. Windustry resolved to address this issue by creating a custom track in the state and regional wind energy conference held in Minneapolis, November 21-22, 2002. There were a few sessions in the Landowner and Citizen Workshops track that were specifically created to talk about the ''how-to's for rural landowners to put together their own projects. Also, the conference's Community-Based Wind track addressed what makes a good project and what moneylenders are looking for when they evaluate wind projects. All of this contributed to the general knowledge base for other farmers to understand what it takes to put together their own wind energy enterprise. In a limited way, Windustry is beginning to define, differentiate and explore new types of wind energy business models. A good initial step is defining community-based wind as projects that are publicly owned--by a municipality, a rural electric coop, a county, or public entity like a school system, or hospital or jail. Ultimately, this work will lead to new materials on wind energy business models for rural landowners and communities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4330.299

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207