Detecting instrumental icing using automated double anemometry
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
Abstract In this paper, we propose several improvements to the standard double anemometry method for ice detection. In the double anemometry method, the wind speed measurement from a heated reference anemometer is compared with that of an unheated anemometer. A lower measurement from the unheated sensor suggests the presence of ice. First, we propose using a wind speed difference (not a ratio), because anemometers should not deviate significantly at any wind speed under ice‐free conditions. Second, the threshold should vary with ambient temperature to account for cup anemometer slowdown caused by thickening bearing grease. Finally, sensitive thresholds should be used to overdetect ice and false events removed during postprocessing. We created an algorithm to automatically determine the required thresholds and tested it on seven wind turbines during a full winter at a cold climate site. When compared with ice thickness measurements from cameras, the algorithm was equal to or outperformed the manual double anemometry method across all seven turbines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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