MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990711238 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v2n2p14

Energy Efficiency Technologies – Air Source Heat Pump vs. Ground Source Heat Pump

2009· article· en· W1990711238 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRefrigeration and Air Conditioning Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat pumpHybrid heatWork (physics)Air source heat pumpsEnvironmental scienceCoefficient of performanceComputer scienceProcess engineeringNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heat pump deserves the name of eco-innovation. It uses ‘free energy’ - warmth collected in the soil or in the air to provide heating and cooling. There are two main types of heat pumps – air source heat pump and ground source heat pump. How do they work? What are the benefits of each system? How do they compare? First of all, questions like “what is heat pump, how does it work, what are ASHPs and GSHPs” will be answered. Then a detailed comparison between ASHPs and GSHPs will be carried out, from technological parameters to social, practical, economical parameters. Finally, the conclusions are drawn from these parameters as to decide which kind of heat pump is better off under different conditions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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