MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392375178 · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01260-7

Identification of reliable locations for wind power generation through a global analysis of wind droughts

2024· article· en· W4392375178 on OpenAlexaff
Enrico G. A. Antonini, Edgar Virgüez, Sara Ashfaq, Lei Duan, Tyler Ruggles, Ken Caldeira

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
FundersCarnegie Institution of Washington
KeywordsWind powerIdentification (biology)Environmental scienceMeteorologyClimatologyGeographyGeologyEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wind droughts, or prolonged periods of low wind speeds, pose challenges for electricity systems largely reliant on wind generation. Using weather reanalysis data, we analyzed the global distribution of and trends in wind droughts using an energy deficit metric that integrates the depth and duration of wind droughts. We identified regions with high power densities, low seasonal variability, and limited weather fluctuations that favor wind power generation, such as the American Midwest, Australia, the Sahara, Argentina, Central Asia, and Southern Africa. Northwestern Europe has high power densities but experiences more frequent and prolonged wind droughts due to higher weather variability. We found little evidence for strong trends in wind droughts over recent decades in most places. Rather, the most severe wind droughts in many places occurred before wind power substantially penetrated power systems, which suggests that historical weather data can be useful in designing reliable wind-reliant electricity systems.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207