Study Concerning the Thermal Insulation Panels with Double-Side Anti-Condensation Foil on the Exterior and Polyurethane Foam or Polyisocyanurate on the Interior
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".