MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk-informed multi-criteria assessment of dam reservoirs for floating photovoltaic farms in arid and semi-arid regions

2025· article· en· W4413278732 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Latif, Reza Javidi Sabbaghian, Mohammad Fereshtehpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWestern University
FundersIran Water Resources Management CompanyHakim Sabzevari UniversityFerdowsi University of Mashhad
KeywordsAridPhotovoltaic systemEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementGeographyHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floating Photovoltaic (FPV) farms have emerged as a rapidly advancing solar powertechnology, driven by land-use constraints and increasing global demand forsustainable energy solutions. This system has several advantages over land-basedones in terms of energy generation, water and land conservation, and environmentalimpacts. This study develops a risk-oriented decision-making framework to prioritizedams in Khorasan Razavi, Iran, for implementing FPV systems. To this end, theresearch employs the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) combined withrisk attitudes related to multi-criteria satisfaction, to rank the selected dams. Inaddition, PVsyst software and the simplified Penman equation are used to analyzethe potential for energy generation and evaporation reduction on these prioritizeddams. In this study, three PV deployment scenarios are examined: floating PVarrays covering 1% and 10% of the reservoir’s surface area and a fixed 7 MW PVsystem as the feasible capacity under site-specific constraints. To guide the optimaldeployment of FPV systems, this study introduces a point-based ranking frameworkthat incorporates multiple risk perspectives—ranging from fully risk-averse to fullyrisk-prone scenarios. While results show consistency between the multi-criteriarankings and energy simulation outputs for several dams, notable discrepancies—such as Tabarak’s high risk-based rank despite its lower energy output and limitedevaporation reduction—highlight the importance of using both approachesin tandem. The proposed framework contributes to a more comprehensiveunderstanding of site suitability, balancing technical performance with broadercontextual and stakeholder considerations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207