MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187586035 · doi:10.2172/1131375

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 Preliminary Determination: Qualitative Analysis

2014· report· en· W2187586035 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark A. Halverson, Reid Hart, Rahul A. Athalye, Michael Rosenberg, Eric E. Richman, David W. Winiarski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryCoastal Response Research Center, University of New HampshirePetroleum Technology Alliance CanadaIlluminating Engineering SocietyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsASHRAE 90.1EngineeringGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 304(b) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as amended, requires the Secretary of Energy to make a determination each time a revised version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is published with respect to whether the revised standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. When the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issues an affirmative determination on Standard 90.1, states are statutorily required to certify within two years that they have reviewed and updated the commercial provisions of their building energy code, with respect to energy efficiency, to meet or exceed the revised standard. This report provides a preliminary qualitative analysis of all addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2010 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2010 or 2010 edition) that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2013 or 2013 edition).

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207