MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210509696 · doi:10.3390/en15031083

A Review on the Estimation of Power Loss Due to Icing in Wind Turbines

2022· review· en· W4210509696 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingWind powerComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringPower (physics)Environmental scienceMeteorologyAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to review the methodologies used in the last 15 years to estimate the power loss in wind turbines due to their exposure to adverse meteorological conditions. Among the methods, the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the three-dimensional numerical simulation of wind turbines is highlighted, as well as the use of two-dimensional CFD simulation in conjunction with the blade element momentum theory (BEM). In addition, a brief review of other methodologies such as image analysis, deep learning, and forecasting models is also presented. This review constitutes a baseline for new investigations of the icing effects on wind turbines’ power outputs. Furthermore, it contributes to a continuous improvement in power-loss prediction and the better response of icing protection systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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