MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884210315 · doi:10.1115/1.2004-jun-2

Another Approach to Wind

2004· article· en· W2884210315 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

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerMarine engineeringTurbineTurbine bladeGlobeEngineeringsortMechanical engineeringMasonryPropellerBlade (archaeology)Horizontal axisStructural engineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article highlights how vertical-axis turbines may avoid the limitations of today’s standard propeller-like machines. Horizontal-axis wind turbine technology is likely to peak in the next few years, largely because of the limitations of the blades and their effects on the machine. The power output of a wind turbine is directly related to the swept area of its blades. The larger the diameter, the more power it is capable of extracting from the wind. The larger the blades, the stronger they need to be to withstand the higher levels of centrifugal force and stresses caused by their additional size and weight. Tall masonry structures of the sort that are suitable for the Eurowind turbines were once a common sight in industrial cities and towns across the globe. However, as technology changed, many of these structures became obsolete. Indeed, the structures have lent their name to an entire subset of old-fashioned, low-tech businesses in smokestack industries.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.162 · 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