Hydrogen Demonstration Project Evaluations: FINAL REPORT for IEA – International Energy Agency HIA – Hydrogen Implementing Agreement Task 18: Integrated Systems Evaluation Subtask B: Demonstration Project Evaluations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Energy Agency (IEA) Hydrogen Implementing Agreement (HIA) has established a task (Annex 18) on “Integrated Systems: Evaluation of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects.” Phase 1 of this task operated from 2004-2006. Phase 2 will continue through 2009. The overall objective of Annex 18 is to provide information on progress in the hydrogen economy. Thirteen countries were formal members of Phase 1 of Annex 18. Theses were: Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Commission. In addition, a Swiss representative sponsored directly by the Hydrogen Implementing Agreement participated in the Annex. There were two subtask groups in Phase 1. Subtask A, Information Base Development has built a series of information or data bases, including national documents, national capabilities, a compilation of demonstration projects, a hydrogen resources technology cost and performance data set, and a set of links to other appropriate sites. Subtask B “Demonstration Project Evaluations” has the overall goal to study and analyze hydrogen demonstration projects currently deployed within the participating countries. In Subtask B modeling tools are used to help guide, assess, and evaluate the overall design and performance of a variety of integrated hydrogen demonstration projects. This report describes the work performed within Subtask B, Phase 1. The general method adopted has been to gather technical and operational data from various stationary hydrogen energy demonstration systems within the Annex 18 membership. Custom made, specific system simulators based on the data collected and a set of known hydrogen energy system models were developed. The data collected from each of these systems was used to verify and improve the models and assumptions used in the modeling tools, and/or to investigate alternative designs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it