MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131984345

Experimental study of the wake produced by single and multiple cross-flow turbines

2019· article· en· W7131984345 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Mitchel Provan, Andrew Cornett, Paul Knox, Julien Cousineau, Sean Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsWakeTurbineTurbulence kinetic energyTurbulenceFlumeWind powerWake turbulenceWind speed
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrokinetic turbines, which convert the kinetic energy of flowing water into electrical energy, are increasingly being deployed in arrays, much like multiple wind turbines are commonly organized into a wind farm. Deploying multiple devices in an array can increase the amount of energy produced from a site and tends to make project economics more favourable. Despite growing interest in hydrokinetic turbine arrays, relatively few researchers have studied arrays and limited information exists concerning the character of the turbulent flows within arrays and methods for optimizing array layout, particularly for cross-flow turbines. This paper presents results from a set of experiments conducted in a current flume in which the wakes produced by a single cross-flow turbine and pairs of identical cross-flow turbines were measured in detail. Two different ambient turbulence intensities were studied so that the effect of turbulence level on wake recovery could be quantified. The velocity data has been analyzed to identify the mean velocity and the turbulence intensity in the turbine wake(s). These experiments form one component of a larger study that aims to develop numerical methods and guidelines to help project developers optimize the design of turbine arrays.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207