MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971112687 · doi:10.3390/buildings4040762

Building Performance Analysis and Simulation: We’ve Come a Long Way

2014· article· en· W1971112687 on OpenAlexaffabout
V. Ismet Ugursal

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRACE (psycholinguistics)Work (physics)SalaryComputer scienceEngineeringSimulationTelecommunicationsArchitectural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Back in 1981, when I started doing building energy performance simulation for pre-design and energy efficiency retrofit work, building simulation was in its infancy. There were only a handful of building energy simulation programs, with DOE-2, ESP-II, BLAST, TRACE and MERIWHETHER being the most commonly used ones by consultants [1]. These programs required "mainframe" computers, so I used to prepare the input files on a Radio Shack TRS-80, send it over a telephone modem to a company in Toronto that ran the simulation on a mainframe computer overnight and shipped the printed output to me by courier in the morning. Each run had a turn-around time of almost 48 h, and the run-time and courier charges were about $100, almost as much as a day's salary for a young engineer. [...]

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207