MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155618108 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.628148

Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Hybrid Biophysical Approach to Wave Energy Extraction: Bio-Oscillator

2021· article· en· W3155618108 on OpenAlexaff
Tabea Hildebrand, Christian Fischer, Veronica Relano, Richard M. Gorman, Craig Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
KeywordsBiofoulingMooringMarine energyMarine engineeringRenewable energyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is described for a novel wave energy converters (WEC) design based on a marine hybrid bio-structure—a combination of macroalgae, shellfish or other species on a built frame. The Bio-Oscillator design utilises a hard “skeleton” (e.g., carbon fibre, wood) on which biological organisms (e.g., shellfish, large macroalgae) are grown. As waves pass by, the load generated by the oscillating drag and inertia is transferred through mooring lines to power takeoff technology. This novel approach essentially reverses the typical marine engineering view that “bio-fouling is bad” and instead leverages off the added-drag of biological growth on structures. The approach results in a structure that is largely biodegradable, naturally self-replicating and synergistic with the background environment, self-de-risking in terms of failure impact and can leverage off its own form to enhance energy capture beyond a conventional design. This reduces impact while connecting with conventional marine industries such as aquaculture. A CBA examines the economic pros and cons of this approach, focusing on installation and material costs, along with benefits from synergistic production. The analysis suggests that in addition to typical wave energy obstacles (e.g., cable length, capture width, and power take off) the benefits (biodegradability, harvestability, and carbon reduction) of replacing much of the mass of the structure with living biological material can be included.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207