MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315238523 · doi:10.18086/eurosun.2010.06.14

Net Zero Energy Buildings - Calculation Methodologies Versus National Building Codes

2010· article· en· W2315238523 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZero-energy buildingComputer scienceZero (linguistics)Architectural engineeringEnergy (signal processing)Efficient energy useElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The international cooperation project IEA SHC Task 40 / ECBCS Annex 52 “Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings”, attempts to develop a common understanding and to set up the basis for an international definition framework of Net Zero Energy Buildings (Net ZEBs). The understanding of such buildings and how the Net ZEB status should be calculated differs in most countries. This paper presents an overview of Net ZEBs energy calculation methodologies proposed by organisations representing eight different countries: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland and the USA. The different parameters used in the calculations are discussed and the various renewable supply options considered in the methodologies are summarised graphically. Thus, the paper helps to understand different existing approaches to calculate energy balance in Net ZEBs, highlights the importance of variables selection and identify possible renewable energy supply options which may be considered in calculations. Finally, the gap between the methodology proposed by each organisation and their respective national building code is assessed; providing an overview of the possible changes building codes will need to undergo in the coming years.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207