MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996307658 · doi:10.5339/qfarf.2012.eep38

The possibility to lower building energy consumptions in Qatar

2012· article· en· W1996307658 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Kharseh, Ferri Hassani, Mohammed Al Khawajah

Bibliographic record

VenueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat pumpPhotovoltaic systemRenewable energyAir conditioningElectricityFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringEnergy consumptionWater coolingEnvironmental economicsEngineeringWaste managementMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringHeat exchanger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most global energy comes from fossil fuel. Currently, there is a strong belief that climate change is anthropogenic and attributed to fossil fuel consumption. Heating and cooling systems account for half of global energy consumptions. In hot and underdeveloped countries such as Qatar, the share of air conditioning systems is expected to be even more than half the national energy consumption. This provides the challenge to study energy consumption in building sectors to find new methods to increase the performance of air conditioning systems. Up until now, renewable energy sources supply only around 2-3% of the annual global heating and cooling demand. Due to its high thermal performance, heat pump systems and in particular ground coupled heat pump systems (GCHP), are increasingly becoming more common for air conditioning applications. In the light of the improvement in performance of photovoltaic systems, the combination between the photovoltaic and HP or GCHP is gaining more economic feasibility. This paper studies renewable energy options for building cooling systems for energy and environment savings. To achieve this goal, a residential apartment in Doha, Qatar, was selected as a case study. The cooling demand of the case study was assessed and four different cooling systems were designed including: (1) air coupled heat pump system (as a reference system); (2) ground coupled heat pump; (3) air coupled heat pump combined with a photovoltaic panel to generate electricity; and (4) ground coupled heat pump combined with a photovoltaic panel to generate electricity. Compared to the reference system, the reduction in the non-renewable energy consumption and the payback time was estimated for each system.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207