Harnessing the sun : use solar shingles to turn your cabin into a sleek, green power plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solar roofing tiles are now being used by cottage owners to generate power. The Canadian photovoltaics (PV) industry has grown at an average annual rate of 25 per cent from 1992 to 2006. The price of solar equipment has dropped, and solar tiles are now an affordable option for cottage or homeowners in remote locations. The tiles are constructed of PV cells mounted on a composite roofing tile. The tiles are connected together in a series or as groups. Electrical lines for each group run to an inverter that converts DC power to AC power. AC lines are connected to AC electrical panels in the house. The tiles also perform the same function and are installed in the same manner as traditional roofing tiles. Solar roofing is common in countries such as Japan and Germany, where electricity are high. Studies have shown that Canada is between 10 and 15 years behind other developed countries in the application of solar technologies. The tiles typically cost approximately $12,500 per kW installed. Typical installations are approximately 3 kW and are capable of producing up to 4000 kWh of electricity per year. Each kW requires approximately 100 square feet of roof area to install. It was concluded that when combined with a feed-in tariff or subsidy program, the cost of the PV tiles can be recovered in 12 or 15 years. 2 figs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.031 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".