MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186281079 · doi:10.11575/prism/35938

Feasibility Study Of Plant Fibre Reinforced Bioresin Composite Wind Turbine Blades In Alberta

2015· article· en· W3186281079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberTurbine bladeTurbineEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind energy is a renewable form of energy, yet the blades are currently being manufactured from petroleum-derived chemicals. At the moment, there are no known alternatives to these petrochemicals in large wind turbines. Literature describes the use of plant-reinforced composites constructed from flax fibres and polyester, a petroleum based compound, for manufacturing small wind turbines of 11 kilowatt. In this report, a plant reinforced composite and bio-resin known as flax fibre and SuperSap100/1000 is assessed. A full scientific, energetic and environmental analysis is conducted using data calculated from various LCAs for 2MW wind turbines; the results are compared with conventional fibreglass and epoxy blades. The projected flax fibre and SuperSap100/1000 system is determined to provide several energetic and environmental advantages over conventional blades. By replacing conventional blades, the proposed composite would serve as a renewable resource in the construction of wind turbines that would be implemented in Alberta.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207