MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280494263 · doi:10.1071/aj21070

Developing Australia’s underground hydrogen storage through demonstration

2022· article· en· W4280494263 on OpenAlexaff
Max Watson, Jonathan Ennis‐King, Allison Hortle, Matthias Raab

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessInvestment (military)Scale (ratio)Proxy (statistics)Environmental economicsEnvironmental scienceFinanceOperations managementEngineeringEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Australia to capitalise on the growing hydrogen (H2) economy, the current capability gap for large-scale, secure and cost-effective H2 storage must be addressed. Large-scale underground hydrogen storage (UHS) in porous reservoirs offers the required capacity to balance discrepancies between demand and supply over seasonal durations, and support decarbonisation and security in Australia’s energy system. This becomes essential for export and domestic markets from 2030 onwards. UHS in depleted gas fields can address the infrastructure and safety challenges, as well as supporting long-term supply security while decreasing delivery price through economies of scale. However, the technical readiness for Australia’s industries to undertake UHS is low, with scientific challenges around how stored H2 interacts with subsurface rocks and fluids, and how this impacts the storage efficiency. A commercially relevant demonstration of UHS is essential for providing the knowledge and confidence for large investment into commercial scale UHS. CO2CRC and CSIRO are collaboratively developing such a demonstration, utilising data and learnings from the Otway International Test Centre, as a proxy for commercial-scale UHS operations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207