Great Lakes Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many issues associated with wind development in the Great Lakes will require solutions different from those developed for offshore wind in ocean states and may not fully benefit from the industry learnings of nearby states. As a result, technology readiness and cost reduction for Great Lakes Wind (GLW) energy generation is likely to be delayed relative to other regions without a substantial, targeted GLW research campaign, and proactive stakeholder engagement in the region at all levels. Failure to conduct the necessary research to lower GLW costs in the near term could limit its contribution to the Nation's decarbonization goals by 2035, and could potentially raise long term energy prices in Great Lakes states if demand for renewable energy continues to accelerate. The overall objective of a research program such as that described in this report would be to enable the realization of commercial GLW before 2035. With the aim of ensuring that prospective development of GLW is conducted efficiently, safely, and coordinated in the best interests of the local residents and stakeholders, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) tasked the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assist in (a) developing an improved understanding of offshore wind power's development potential in the Great Lakes, (b) identifying the key issues that need to be resolved for this potential to be achieved, and (c) defining a comprehensive research program to address and resolve these issues. This report presents the results of NREL's effort to address these needs.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".