MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234081056 · doi:10.1002/9781118991978.hces149

Tidal Range

2015· other· en· W4234081056 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbook of Clean Energy Systems · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTidal powerTidal rangeRange (aeronautics)Intertidal zoneEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationGeographyOceanographyPower (physics)GeologyEngineeringMarine engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The idea of extracting significant, utility‐scale energy from the difference in sea level height between high and low tides (the tidal range) has been actively considered for around a century. As well as being a low carbon technology, the scale of the resource is significant, particularly for certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Korea. However, tidal range power schemes also present complex challenges, most notably the economics and (particularly more recently) environmental aspects, which are connected. The economics of tidal power schemes is very strongly dependent on the discount rate applied to the cost of energy (CoE) calculation because of the long construction period and the very long life of the main structure, which may represent ca. 50% of the overall costs. Historically, ebb generation has been focused on, as this was expected to have the lowest CoE. However, effective ebb generation, optimized for CoE, generally means that the tidal range within the impounded basin is around 50% of the natural tidal range, and one of the key issues is quantifying the loss of intertidal habitat and its relative impacts, as well as how compensatory habitats could be created. More recently, dual mode generation has been focused on as a means to reduce some of the undesirable environmental impacts of ebb generation, as the tidal range more closely matches the natural tidal range; in addition, the power output may be smoother and therefore easier to absorb onto the grid. As tidal range schemes must have a reasonably significant effect on the natural tidal cycle in order to extract useful energy, mathematical modeling of the tides and associated aspects is required to allow an understanding of both the operation of the tidal range scheme, especially its energy output, and its impacts on aspects such as water levels, currents, sedimentation, and water quality. Although various tidal range schemes have been under development for around a century, only two significant utility‐scale schemes have been built, both being ca. 250 MW . The La Rance barrage in France has been operating for ca. 50 years, and the technology has been well proven. Few significant tidal range schemes are under active development outside the United Kingdom and South Korea; and the United Kingdom's Swansea Bay lagoon scheme in particular may determine the success of the sector in France, the United Kingdom, and Canada over the next few decades. This project attempts to address some of the key economic and environmental constraints that have hampered the sector.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.172 · 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