MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386611327

Diagnostics for Monitoring-Based Commissioning

2009· article· en· W2386611327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Brambley, Srinivas Katipamula

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject commissioningEngineeringComputer scienceEfficient energy useReliability engineeringSystems engineeringPublishing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis This paper presents a case for application of automated monitoring, analysis and diagnostic tools for monitoring-based commissioning. Selected examples are presented in which such tools have been used successfully to support commissioning activities in southwestern Canada and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The first example involves use of spreadsheet-based tools to automatically generate diagnostic plots that are visually examined for specific features that reveal operational problems in space conditioning systems of large commercial buildings. The findings then guide re-tuning actions to increase building energy efficiency. This is followed by application of a tool for continuous monitoring of whole-building energy use to automatically track energy savings resulting from a utility commissioning program. This tool also provides a means by which to detect degradation of savings and performance to guide monitoring-based commissioning actions. The potential use of automated diagnostic tools for chillers and packaged air conditioners is then described for continually commissioning these units. The paper concludes with a discussion of the impacts of this approach on commissioning, including potential time savings, associated cost savings, and improvements in the quality of commissioning.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207