MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319486861 · doi:10.1115/es2008-54047

Energy Saving Studies in Industrial Facilities

2008· article· en· W2319486861 on OpenAlexaff
Mehmet Kanoğlu, Ilker Karabay, İbrahim Dinçer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy conservationEnergy consumptionEfficient energy useEnvironmental sciencePayback periodGreenhouse gasGas compressorProductivityEnvironmental economicsConsumption (sociology)Waste managementEnvironmental engineeringProduction (economics)EngineeringEconomicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient energy use is critical for the success of any industrial facility since reduced energy consumption through energy conservation/saving programs can benefit not only consumers and utilities, but society in general as well. In particular, reduced energy consumption generally leads to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants into the environment. It also helps reduce the operational costs in the facility. There is a strong need to take some energy saving measures in every plant/ facility. Although these may be quite diverse, some of these measures include thermal insulation, use of more efficient equipment, heat recovery systems, high efficiency lighting, changing the fuel, reducing the cost of compressed air, and enhancing productivity. In this study, some certain energy conservation measures are considered for assessing a packaging film manufacturing facility in Gaziantep, Turkey. Taking advantage of dry and hot climates of the city, cooling compressor inlet air by evaporative cooling technique is also assessed. Our investigation shows that there is a huge room for energy conservation measures. The total savings potential are expected to be 869,350 YTL (about $725,000) representing about 16% of the total energy consumption. The payback periods for the identified measures are justified. We believe that the results are typical rather than exceptional for the industrial sector in Turkey.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207