MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097600460

Tidal current energy assessment for Johnstone Strait, Vancouver

2006· article· en· W7097600460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel (broadcasting)Flow (mathematics)Power (physics)Current (fluid)Tidal powerEnergy (signal processing)Potential flowOpen-channel flow
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The maximum tidal power potential of Johnstone Strait, BC, Canada is evaluated using a two-dimensional finite element model (TIDE2D) with turbines simulated in certain regions by increasing the drag. Initially, side channels are closed off so that the flow is forced through one channel to test the validity of a general analytic theory [1] with numerical results. In this case, the modelled power potential of 886 MW agrees reasonably well with the analytic estimate of 826 MW. In reality, two main channels, Discovery Passage and Cordero Channel, connect the Pacific Ocean to the Strait of Georgia. Turbines are simulated in Johnstone Strait, northwest of the two main channels, and separately for Discovery Passage and Cordero Channel. Northwestern Johnstone Strait is similar to the one channel case as the flow must go through this channel, but Discovery Passage and Cordero Channel are different as the flow can be diverted away from the channel with the turbines and into the other channel. The maximum extractable power in northwestern Johnstone Strait is found to be 1335 MW, which agrees well with the theoretical estimate of 1320 MW. In Discovery Passage and Cordero Channel, the maximum extractable power is modelled to be 401 and 277 MW, respectively, due to the flow being partly diverted into the other channel. In all cases, the current is reduced to between 57 and 58 per cent of the undisturbed flow, close to the 56 per cent predicted by the analytic theory. All power calculations are for the M2 constituent alone, as this is the largest current in the region. The total power from the eight major constituents (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, 01, P1, and Q1) can be obtained by multiplying the power estimates for M2 by 1.12.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207