Generating Reuse Possibilities for Retired Wind-Turbine Blades
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to identify reuses for wind-turbine blades that are retired when they reach the end of their technical life. Wind-turbine blades are made from fiber-composite materials, for which technologies for effective material-based recycling are extremely limited. An approach to avoid or postpone recycling is to repurpose wind-turbine blades in other applications, as they should not be reused as wind-turbine blades for safety reasons. However, identifying promising reuses for wind-turbine blades is challenging due to their specific shape and material properties. In addition to issues of functional fixedness, wind-turbine blades are physically much larger than everyday objects with which people typically reason. Following a series of studies where engineering students were asked to identify wind-turbine-blade reuses, a method involving perspective-taking was developed and applied. The effects of this method on concept generation are reported and compared to SCAMPER, an existing design method. This work highlights the effectiveness of perspective-taking over SCAMPER for generating concepts, and incorporates psychological concepts, including Need for Closure and Regulatory Focus Theory.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it