The relationship between hydrogen and its application in wind energy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to map papers about the use of hydrogen as a fuel and its association with wind energy under siege in two databases (Web of Science and Scopus) to provide insights about this topic and verify its current context. This study was a systematic literature review and content analysis of 87 papers from Web of Science and Scopus database. The papers were analyzed from descriptive, bibliographic, methodologic, results and citation characteristics. The publications about this theme have been mostly developed using mixed research models (quantitative and qualitative), especially due to the need to validate these experimental models for practical application, can be classified into four central clusters: 1) Green hydrogen; 2) Economic Viability and Costs; 3) New Technologies; and 4) Public Policies and Case Studies, with different focuses that converging to the same objective, the use of hydrogen as an ecologically correct and profitable fuel to serve the energy production system from wind plants. From the results obtained, it is observed that the use of hydrogen as a fuel, and wind energy, are themes that have been relatively significant in recent years within the environment of industrial innovation, presenting an eclecticism, where several countries in a pulverized form are increasingly seeking invest in these technologies, which is expressed through the substantial growth in the number of papers published about these themes since 2000s.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".