An investigation on low head hydropower in United State and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydropower plays a significant role in renewable electricity production. Nowadays many countries are planning to develop small and micro hydropower because of environmental issues caused by developing large scale hydro powers. Low head hydro powers are among renewable sources of energy which attracts a lot of attention in last years. In this paper low head hydropower in United State and Canada has been investigated in terms of available potentials, allocated funds, incentive policies and economic analyses. There are about 67 GW theoretical low head hydropower potentials in United States which government is planning to exploit 30 GW of these potentials until 2030. To reach this goal, US government has allocated 14% of hydropower research and development's fund to this area in last recent years. In Canada 5 GW theoretical low head potentials have identified. Although capital cost of low head hydropower is higher than other renewable energy, but due to longer lifetime and higher capacity factor, overall cost in unit of generated energy is lower than some renewable energy including photovoltaic, solar thermal energy and biomass. Therefore low head hydropower needs appropriate incentive policy for higher deployment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".