MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147366589 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1997.627111

Effect of wind turbine parameters on the capacity adequacy of generating systems using wind energy

2002· article· en· W2147366589 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbineWind powerWind speedMarine engineeringSteam turbineElectricityMatching (statistics)Environmental scienceAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMeteorologyElectrical engineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of electricity by a wind turbine at a specific site depends on many factors. These factors include the wind speed conditions at the site and the characteristics of the wind turbine generator (WTG) itself, particularly the cut-in, rated and cut-out wind speed parameters. There are many different types of wind turbines commercially available on the market. It is therefore desirable to select a wind turbine which is best suited for a particular site in order to obtain the maximum capacity benefit at the given criterion risk level. This paper illustrates the effect of different wind turbine design parameters on the basic adequacy indices and the load carrying capacity benefit ratio (LCCBR) using a small test system. The case studies also show how an optimum site-matching wind turbine can be selected using the LCCBR.

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)0.001
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207