MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Wave Energy Assessment in the South China Sea

2016· article· en· W2477363354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayodotun Adekunle Osinowo, Xiaopei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable Energy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSignificant wave heightWave powerSubmarine pipelineAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyEnergy (signal processing)Wind waveGeologyMathematicsStatisticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a thirty year (1976-2005) assessment of wave energy resource within the South China Sea (SCS) by simulation. Significant wave height (SWH) between simulation and observation shows good agreement. This shows the reliability of an along-side simulated wave period in estimating wave energy in the SCS. Results show that estimates of wave power density are more reliable in the north-central SCS and most sufficient during winter. The annual mean wave power density peaked at 12.7kW/m and 12.9kW/m during years 1986 and 1999 respectively while the highest seasonal mean of 29kW/m occurred in year 1999 during winter. The wave power density is most stable in winter and is generally more stable in offshore regions of SCS. Wave power density is most stable in years 1976, 1997 and 2004 with stability values of 1.96, 1.98 and 1.9 respectively. The stability value of 0.9 in year 1980 is the greatest in the winter of all years. Relative-rich energy regions occupy the largest area during winter. The relatively richest energy is generally concentrated in the central and north-central SCS. No area is identified as a relative-rich energy region during spring. Winter 1999 has the highest relative-rich energy with value of 37kW/m.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable EnergySame topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207