MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404997742 · doi:10.1680/jener.24.00048

Turbine performance and wind energy potential using probability distribution in Africa

2024· article· en· W4404997742 on OpenAlexaff
Girma Zenebe, Seid Endro, Haiter Lenin Allasi, Sujin Jose Arul, S. Vasanthi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionWind powerWind speedEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyTurbineRenewable energyWind profile power lawMaximum sustained windWind gradientStatisticsEngineeringGeographyMathematicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The energy requirement in the world is increasing day by day. The non-renewable energy production is one of the reasons for climate change. The present study explores the selection of possible locations to establish a wind power plant in Ethiopia. The possible locations in Ethiopia that were considered in this study are Weraelu, Enewari and Mekdela. The wind speed characterisation, wind direction and wind power densities were analysed at Weraelu, Enewari and Mekdela. The results of this study reveal that Enewari is the best suitable place to establish the wind power plants among Weraelu, Enewari and Mekdela. In Enewari site, the maximum wind speed at 10 m height is 6.11 m/s. Seventy-five per cent of wind direction at Enewari site is from north to northwest and north to northeast. The Weibull distribution analysis was incorporated to find average wind speed and probability density among 5 years of wind speed data. The average wind speed and probability density over 5 years of Enewari site is 5 m/s and 18.5%. The wind power densities were determined by the Weibull method and the maximum wind power obtained from Enewari site is 495.33 W/m 2 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - EnergySame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207