MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160777885 · doi:10.1109/tec.2006.889603

Harnessing High-Altitude Wind Power

2007· article· en· W2160777885 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan W. Roberts, David H. Shepard, Ken Caldeira, M. Elizabeth Cannon, David G. Eccles, Albert J. Grenier, Jonathan F. Freidin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospace engineeringWind powerAerodynamicsElectricity generationElectricityMeteorologyScale (ratio)Environmental scienceElectrical engineeringAltitude (triangle)Power (physics)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flying electric generators (FEGs) are proposed to harness kinetic energy in the powerful, persistent high-altitude winds. Average power density can be as high as 20 kW/m2in an approximately 1000-km-wide band around latitude 30deg in both the hemispheres of the Earth. At 15 000 ft (4600 m) and above, tethered rotorcraft, with four or more rotors mounted on each unit, could give individual rated outputs of up to 40 MW. These aircrafts would be highly controllable and could be flown in arrays, making them a large-scale source of reliable wind power. The aerodynamics, electrics, and control of these craft are described in detail, along with a description of the tether mechanics. A 240 kW craft has been designed to demonstrate the concept at altitude. It is anticipated that large-scale units would make low-cost electricity available for grid supply, for hydrogen production, or for hydro-storage from large-scale generating facilities

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations133
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Energy ConversionSame topicAerospace Engineering and Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207