MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392758113 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-14169

Hydrokinetic resource assessment for the Canadian Arctic

2024· preprint· en· W4392758113 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Bhattacharjee, Laxmi Sushama, Julien Cousineau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticResource (disambiguation)The arcticEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningNatural resource economicsGeographyComputer scienceOceanographyEconomicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing renewable energy development has rekindled interest in hydrokinetic or in-stream river potential for power production using zero head turbines. This is also of interest for remote regions such as the Canadian Arctic where decentralized power production from renewable energy sources is an economically viable option in offsetting the high cost of diesel power production. However, one of the major obstacles is the absence of streamflow data at necessary spatial and temporal scales for these regions. This study estimates the hydrokinetic power potential for current-based systems in the rivers of the Canadian Arctic region, primarily Nunavut and adjoining regions, for the current and near-future periods, based on streamflow estimated using a routing scheme applied to runoff generated by ultra-high-resolution simulations of the Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model, for a high emission scenario. GEM simulation for current climate, validated against gridded and station observation data, suggest reasonable performance of the model, particularly streamflow-relevant variables such as precipitation, snow water equivalent, soil and air temperatures given improved representation of processes and surface heterogeneity due to the higher resolution. This is also reflected in the comparison of simulated streamflow characteristics with available observations from HYDAT.Hydrokinetic power estimates over the study region show patterns similar to those of flow velocity as expected, with maximum hydropower being noted during the summer season for the central regions of Nunavut. Since the near-future period spans only till 2040, the changes in flow velocity and hydrokinetic power are minimal with an overall decrease of 2.5% for the southern and western regions of Nunavut and an increase of 2.5 to 5 % for some of the northernmost regions of Nunavut. The study further identifies ideal locations for the installation of hydrokinetic turbines for energy extraction, which require daily flow velocities above pre-defined thresholds, by considering indirectly also the impact of river ice on flow velocities. The results of this study provide useful information on hydrokinetic resources for the high-altitude regions of Canada by introducing a science-based approach and serve as a foundation for additional detailed investigations for site-specific studies to support the implementation of hydrokinetic energy conversion 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→