A Probabilistic Methodology for Determining Collision Risk of Marine Animals with Tidal Energy Turbines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial development of tidal stream energy is hampered by technical and financial challenges, and impeded by uncertainty about potential environmental effects that drive environmental risk assessments and permitting (consenting) processes. The effect of greatest concern for operational tidal stream energy devices is the potential for marine animals to collide with turbine blades, resulting in injury or death. Due to the turbulent and often turbid waters that frequently characterize tidal turbine sites, there is an absence of empirical evidence about collisions with marine animals. This paucity of observations often leads to risk-averse permitting decisions that further restrict the deployment of tidal energy devices that are needed to collect this evidence. This paper relies on the framework of stressors and receptors that is used widely in marine energy studies and outlines a stepwise probabilistic methodology that applies existing knowledge to further elucidate the risk to marine animals from operational tidal turbines. A case study using striped bass from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, accompanies the methodology, to partially demonstrate its application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".