MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216302472 · doi:10.1049/pbpo184e_ch1

The current status and future perspectives of compressed air energy storage

2021· book-chapter· en· W3216302472 on OpenAlexaff
David S.‐K. Ting, Jacqueline Stagner

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitution of Engineering and Technology eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPower Systems and Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Compressed air energy storageEnergy (signal processing)Compressed airEnergy storageEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMechanical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is trite to say that energy storage is essential for furthering renewable energy by stabilizing the supply and demand. It is also cliché to point out that compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a promising means for energy storage. To highlight but a few of the multitude of recent publications on CAES, Tan et al. [1] present a comprehensive review concerning various energy storage technologies for empowering smart grid. CAES is also one of the most promising energy storage means in the harsh marine environment [2]. Guo et al. [3] discuss the promise and challenges of utility-scale CAES in aquifers. A regional review of CAES for northern China is compiled by Tong et al. [4]. Mahmoud et al. [5] compare and contrast the three main mechanical energy storage options, flywheel, pumped hydro, and CAES. They conclude that flywheel is best suited for short-duration applications. For longer durations, pumped hydro has the efficiency while CAES provides a faster start-up. For good environmental stewardship, adiabatic or isothermal CAES is recommended. In short, the case for CAES is clear. It is expected to ramp up its importance as we march forward to harness progressively greener energy.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitution of Engineering and Technology eBooksSame topicPower Systems and Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207