MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4361773468 · doi:10.4095/331697

The science questions underpinning the potential for offshore wind turbines on Atlantic Canada's continental shelves

2023· report· en· W4361773468 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jordan B.R. Eamer, C. Greaves, E L King

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeohazardContinental shelfSubmarine pipelineSeabedContinental marginOffshore wind powerShoreMarine geologyOceanographyGlacial periodLandformPaleontologyGeomorphologyLandslideTectonicsTurbineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshore wind farms typically host tens to hundreds of turbines that are individually sited on foundations or anchored if floating. These are connected by inter-farm cables which feed into one or more marine-based substations, further feeding one or more shore-connected high-voltage cables - all infrastructure that requires knowledge of water depth, metocean conditions, and seabed/subsurface geology. With this industry set to establish itself on the continental shelf of Atlantic Canada, knowledge of the geological conditions from the seabed to tens of metres below will be essential for farm layout and foundation design. Thus, geoscience questions addressing regional geomorphology, Pleistocene glacial retreat and sea-level change, the characteristics of key individual stratigraphic layers, and the magnitude and patterns of sediment mobility are important. In Atlantic Canada, ongoing efforts to address these questions are using legacy data, but new data is required to further our understanding of the shallower portions of the shelf. Examples include: what is the distribution of buried tunnel valleys under offshore banks, and might their complex facies infill affect foundation conditions? How and where would the organic sediments, left by a coastal suite of landforms drowned during transgression, affect foundation or landfalling cable stability? How active is salt diapirism, and could it be considered a geohazard? Are demonstrated sediment mass failures also a risk? What is the current understanding of sediment mobility in shallow waters, and how does that affect infrastructure armouring/depth of burial? What is the variability of the geotechnical properties of our offshore sediments? What is the foundation suitability of offshore Tertiary semi-consolidated bedrock? To conclude, the initial scope of a developing regional foundation suitability model will be presented for the Eastern Scotian Shelf.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→