Bibliographic record
Abstract
These data sets provide the WRF [1] calculated wind data for Pritzwalk (onshore) and FINO3 (offshore) as Python dictionaries. Additionally, the files contain k-means cluster objects derived from these profiles. These data sets were used for power assessment and design exploration of Airborne Wind Energy Systems using the awebox [2] optimization toolbox. WRF setups are described in detail and used in publication [3,4,5]. Wind data are interpolated to fixed heights of: [10, 28, 50, 70, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 700, 800, 1000, 1200] meters above ground. Onshore wind data: Location lat: 53° 10.78' N; long: 12° 11.35' E Time: 1 September 2015 - 31 August 2016 Timestep: 10 min Offshore wind data: Location lat: 55° 11.7' N, long: 7° 9.5' E Time: 1 September 2013 - 31 August 2014 Timestep: 10 min The clusters are derived from both horizontal wind velocity components using the scikit-learn’s k-means clustering algorithm [6]. For our purposes, wind vectors were rotated such that the main wind speed always points in the same direction (u_main,u_deviation). [1]: Weather Research and Forecasting Model [2]: awebox [3]: Improving mesoscale wind speed forecasts using lidar-based observation nudging for airborne wind energy systems [4]: Offshore and onshore ground-generation airborne wind energy power curve characterization [5]:Ground-generation airborne wind energy design space exploration [6]: sklearn.cluster.KMeans
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".