MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184885579 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2013.1138

An Optimization Methodology To Evaluate The Effect Size Of Incentives On Energy-cost Optimal Curves

2013· article· en· W2184885579 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy consumptionMathematical optimizationLife-cycle cost analysisEnergy (signal processing)IncentiveFunction (biology)Energy costComputer scienceEfficient energy useReliability engineeringMathematicsEngineeringEnvironmental economicsEconomicsStatisticsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a methodology to measure the effect of economic incentives on energy-cost optimal curves. A case-study using a net-zero energy home, located in Montréal, demonstrated the methodology. An EnergyPlus model evaluated the net-energy consumption objective function using 17 design variables. The life-cycle cost objective function was evaluated by post-processing energy simulation results. A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm searched the solution space for energy-cost optimal curves. The proposed methodology may be useful for policy makers seeking opportunities to reduce the initial and life-cycle costs of high-performance buildings.

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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · 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