A Comparison of American, Canadian, and European Home Energy Performance in Heating Dominated – Moist Climates Based on Building Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research compares the energy performance of a code-built residential building within the moist climate zone classification in Canada, Europe, and the Northeastern United States. The primary objectives are to reveal how specific differences in code requirements in similar climates influence a building’s energy profile, offer a means to quantify and evaluate the extent of energy savings as a result of each requirement, and provide a comparison of each location’s building culture and how this affects the standards in place.\nUsing the building energy simulation tool, DesignBuilder EnergyPlus Simulation, a model single-family home was created and input energy code requirements for each location. An evaluation of each location’s building culture is examined through such factors as the training of building professionals, commonly used materials and products, energy reduction goals, and cultural attitudes.\nThe results of this study point to the need for more advanced building practices, stricter code mandates, and higher performing products based on energy savings achieved from buildings built to different standards in equivalent climate zones. This has the potential to drive the development and use of better performing building materials and assemblies in the future.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".