MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing Control Strategies Using Experimental and Simulation Results: Methodology and Application to Heating Control of Passive Solar Buildings

2006· article· en· W2003645516 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

VenueHVAC&R Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsExtrapolationPassive solar building designControl (management)Computer scienceOccupancyFunction (biology)Thermal comfortSimulationEngineeringSolar energyArchitectural engineeringMeteorologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different heating system controllers for passive solar buildings are compared on two different buildings. The performance criterion combines energy performance and thermal comfort using the “cost function” paradigm. The experimental facilities did not allow a direct experimental comparison by using two identical buildings. The controllers were implemented alternately in one building and a performance comparison was obtained in two ways: first by identifying short periods that have similar driving variables (weather conditions and building occupancy) and comparing the experimental results obtained in both cases. The second method mixes experiments and simulation using a well-tuned model of the building and its occupants. This paper discusses the results obtained using the above methods and shows that both methods give consistent estimates of the difference between controllers and the second method allows extrapolation of useful information from the limited data available.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.302 · 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