MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202124256 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-42198

Appraisal of the IEC Technical Specification for Assessment of Wave Energy Resources

2015· article· en· W2202124256 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Steffanie Pich­é, Andrew Cornett, Scott Baker, Ioan Nistor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)BuoyWave modelComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Systems engineeringEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringOperations researchEngineeringMarine engineeringMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes and presents results from research focused on appraising the new technical specification (TS) for the assessment of wave energy resources developed by technical committee 114 of the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC-TC-114). The new IEC TS is appraised through an extensive pilot application to the waters off the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. A series of wave models are developed and used to simulate the wave conditions and estimate the wave energy resource over the study area. The accuracy of the various resource estimates derived from the model outputs is assessed through comparison with measurements from a directional wave buoy. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses are conducted to determine the main sources of error and uncertainty impacting the precision of resource assessments obtained following the IEC methodology. Preliminary results indicate that the IEC TS can be applied to the estimation of wave energy resources with a reasonable level of effort and accuracy.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207