Study Concerning the Thermal Insulation Panels with Double-Side Anti-Condensation Foil on the Exterior and Polyurethane Foam or Polyisocyanurate on the Interior
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to assess the energy performance of a thermal rehabilitated ground floor building by using new thermal insulation panels with double-side anti-condensation foil on the exterior and polyurethane foam or polyisocyanurate on the interior (PUR or PIR) in various ways. The study also wants to emphasize the benefits of using these insulating materials encouraging their further use. Therefore, five scenarios are carried out, four thermal rehabilitation scenarios and the reference building scenario, without thermal insulation. The obtained results are evaluated by comparison. The results point out the energy performance of PUR and PIR used as thermal insulation panels for the building envelope but also the economic impact and the economic efficiency that involves using such panels. This work is based on the energy efficiency requirements targeting the building envelope and takes into account mainly the behavior of the envelope elements while the heating system is treated in a simplified manner, considering its usual efficiency. The conclusions highlight the main advantages of using these panels for buildings thermal rehabilitation compared to other common materials, such as polystyrene or mineral wool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it