Impact of Room Supply Register Location on Predicted Thermal Comfort and IAQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For residential forced air heating and cooling systems conventional thinking is that air supply registers should be located under exterior windows. There were good reasons for this in the past (primarily to counteract the cold downdraught from the window) but new construction standards (well-insulated walls, better glazing and air tight wall/window interface) mean that there is now less downdraught. Positioning the supply air register away from a window could have a large impact for new construction as duct lengths could be shortened (saving materials and construction time). This could also allow greater architectural freedom as the forced air system would not need to be ducted to the building perimeter. This paper presents results from experiments conducted in a new, well-constructed building to evaluate whether the supply registers can be moved away from the traditional location without impacting indoor air quality or predicted thermal comfort. The physical experiments showed that in both traditional and non-traditional placement: (1) there are minimal changes in predicted thermal comfort (a measure of thermal discomfort - vertical air temperature difference much lower than 3K), and (2) contaminant-removal effectiveness (a measure of indoor air quality) values were in the same range.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".