MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416205733 · doi:10.1201/9781003475378-65

Modelling the river hydrokinetic energy at a bedrock depth constriction

2025· book-chapter· en· W4416205733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katelyn Kirby, Colin D. Rennie, Ioan Nistor, Julien Cousineau, Sean Ferguson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedrockResource (disambiguation)Energy (signal processing)InflowClimate changeCurrent (fluid)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study on the amount of river hydrokinetic energy (HKE) available at a bedrock depth constriction was conducted on the Spanish River in Ontario, Canada. Far fewer, if any, river HKE analyses have been conducted at locations where a depth constriction creates high energy flow conditions compared to the number of HKE studies where slope or width create high energy conditions. Thus, a HKE resource assessment was conducted to assess the feasibility of extracting energy resources for a nearby community and to better understand technical approaches for assessing energy resources caused by depth constrictions. The HKE of the study location was estimated according to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards for river HKE resource assessment. A 1.5 km long section of the river was surveyed twice: on September 21, 2021 (110 m 3 /s) and April 28, 2022 (650 m 3 /s). An acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) was used to collect data to facilitate the development, calibration, and validation of a hydrodynamic model. The flow velocity was found to exceed 1 m/s when the river flow was greater than 200 m 3 /s, corresponding to the 19% probability of exceedance for the river. Thus, turbine prototypes that have been targeting velocities lower than 1 m/s may be more suitable for the study reach and for other sites with similar velocity characteristics. The final feasibility indicator for river HKE resource is the annual energy production (AEP), which was calculated to be 1.9 MWh/year for this reach of the Spanish River.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207