MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544288442 · doi:10.5555/2339453.2339468

Preliminary investigation of the use of Sankey diagrams to enhance building performance simulation-supported design

2012· article· en· W1544288442 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Simulation Symposium · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePresentation (obstetrics)Simple (philosophy)Systems engineeringDesign toolData scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building performance simulation (BPS) is a powerful tool for assessing the performance of unbuilt buildings to improve their design. However, numerous obstacles resulting from limited resources of designers and poor presentation of results reduce the applicability of BPS to design practice. This paper introduces the concept of using Sankey diagrams to represent building energy performance data obtained from BPS tools. While being simple upon first examination Sankey diagrams are complex and reveal many questions that BPS tool users should be considering, including: appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries and model resolution; and it answers questions about how a particular design aspect or technology integrates into the whole building. The paper is a first investigation into the suitability of the application of Sankey diagrams as a tool to communicate BPS data to building designers.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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