MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015301487 · doi:10.1080/00038628.2000.9697436

Selection Of Energy Conservation Measures in a Large Office Building using Decision Models under Uncertainty

2000· article· en· W2015301487 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Science Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersOffice of Electricity
KeywordsPayback periodEnergy conservationEnergy consumptionSelection (genetic algorithm)Energy (signal processing)Computer scienceReliability engineeringEfficient energy useOperations researchEnvironmental economicsEngineeringProduction (economics)StatisticsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy analysis programs are often used for predicting the impact of energy-related building retrofit on the annual energy consumption and cost. However, due to many uncertainties involved in the development of the input file, the energy savings are often overestimated or under estimated. In order to increase the accuracy of predictions, this paper proposes the use of decision models under uncertainty, to determine the most profitable alternative, given the possible errors which may be introduced by the user in the input file. This approach is applied to a large existing office building in Montreal. The predicted annual cost savings, the payback period and the benefit-cost ratio are calculated using the building energy analysis software MICR0-D0E2.1E. The results are then analyzed using different criteria and, finally, some energy conservation measures are selected.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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