MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1943254951 · doi:10.2172/983245

Residential Forced Air System Cabinet Leakage and Blower Performance

2010· report· en· W1943254951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iain S. Walker, Darryl Dickerhoff, William W. Delp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEngineering and Material Science Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHVACASHRAE 90.1Air conditioningLeakage (economics)EngineeringAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project evaluated the air leakage and electric power consumption of Residential HVAC components, with a particular focus on air leakage of furnace cabinets. Laboratory testing of HVAC components indicated that air leakage can be significant and highly variable from unit to unit ? indicating the need for a standard test method and specifying maximum allowable air leakage in California State energy codes. To further this effort, this project provided technical assistance for the development of a national standard for Residential HVAC equipment air leakage. This standard is being developed by ASHRAE and is called"ASHRAE Standard 193P - Method of test for Determining the Air Leakage Rate of HVAC Equipment". The final part of this project evaluated techniques for measurement of furnace blower power consumption. A draft test procedure for power consumption was developed in collaboration with the Canadian General Standards Board: CSA 823"Performance Standard for air handlers in residential space conditioning systems".

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering and Material Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207