MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902062087 · doi:10.60692/ycrnc-vxm80

Integrating compressed air energy storage with wind energy system – A review

2023· article· en· W6902062087 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed air energy storageCompressed airWind powerResilience (materials science)Energy storageEnergy (signal processing)Current (fluid)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

- With an increasing capacity of wind energy globally, wind-driven Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) technology has gained significant momentum in recent years. However, unlike traditional CAES systems, a wind-driven CAES system operates with more frequent fluctuations due to the intermittent nature of wind power. Consequently, the design and operation of wind-driven CAES systems must address such a complex and dynamic behavior. Considering the growing interest in wind-driven CAES systems, a comprehensive and systematic review of the existing literature on their design and operational characteristics is appealing. Therefore, this study aims at filling this research gap by examining the existing literature on the configuration, sizing, and operation/scheduling of wind-driven CAES systems. This review also aims at highlighting the underlying assumptions and methodologies employed in previous studies on wind-driven CAES systems. Given the challenges faced by several CAES projects, which were discontinued due to geological and economic constraints, it is imperative to conduct comprehensive feasibility studies to support the development and implementation of wind-driven CAES systems. Additionally, there is a growing necessity to explore the feasibility of small-scale CAES systems, focusing on their potential to bolster energy security and resilience for small or remote communities in distributed energy systems. By examining the existing literature and highlighting the gaps in current research, a number of insights are provided serving as foundations for future investigations in this field.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.171
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207