Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every marine energy source presents advantages and disadvantages. For example, they are not atthe same stage of maturity. Tidal range power is fully mature but the limited number of sitesavailable, combined with the large environmental impacts and investment costs limit itsdevelopment. The idea of artificial lagoons that will be offshore tidal range plant could create a newinterest for this technology. But for the moment, no plant of this type has been constructed yet. Tidalstream power is the next mature technology of marine energy after tidal range. Its development willrequire public subsidies but is supposed to be commercial in 2015. Systems are already indemonstration in several countries (UK, France and Canada). Wave power is less mature but it willbenefit from the development of tidal stream power and will probably be commercial in 2020. Somesystems are also in demonstration but challenges seem greater in wave power than in tidal power.Wave power conversion systems have to extract energy from the waves, even the largest ones, butat the same time resist to them. Contrary to tidal stream which has a predictable resource, waves areway less predictable and systems will have to be able to resist and valorize waves. OTEC (OceanThermal Energy Conversion) has been studied for years but it is still not mature. Its development forelectricity production needs technology research to develop cheaper and more compact systems(heat exchangers, pipes…). Air conditioning applications are developing and also require the use ofpipes and heat exchangers. Advances in this utilization could maybe help the development of OTECsystems for electricity production. Osmosis is the less mature and the most challenging technology. Atechnological breakthrough in the membrane could allow a rapid development. This breakthroughwill probably come from other sectors so it is important for the industries to get ready in order todevelop the system as soon as this technological improvement will be made.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".