MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087063816 · doi:10.1680/ener.2007.160.3.113

Use of thermal energy storage for sustainable buildings

2007· article· en· W2087063816 on OpenAlexafffund
İbrahim Dinçer, Marc A. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExergySustainabilityExergy efficiencyEnvironmental economicsEfficient energy useEnvironmental scienceThermal energy storageEnergy analysisEnergy storageSustainable energyEnergy (signal processing)Environmental engineeringProcess engineeringEngineeringRenewable energyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal energy storage (TES) systems are examined from the perspectives of energy, exergy, environmental impact, sustainability and economics, with a focus on how they can help make buildings more sustainable. Reductions in energy use and environmental emissions through TES are discussed in detail and highlighted with a case study. The case study demonstrates that TES exergy efficiencies normally are lower than energy efficiencies due to exergy destructions and losses. The importance of using exergy analysis to obtain more realistic and meaningful assessments than are obtained with energy analysis of the efficiency and performance of TES systems is demonstrated. The results indicate that TES can play a significant role in achieving more efficient, environmentally benign, sustainable and economic energy use in buildings, and appears to be an appropriate technology for addressing the mismatches that often occur between times of energy supply and demand.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - EnergySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207