Study of potential nonconformities of a new recreation center building's envelope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a building envelope's analysis in order to verify the compliance with mandatory provisions of the Model National Energy Code for Buildings in Canada (MNECB 1997). Because some of the requirements are «not met», investigations were carried out to provide justifications in order to prove that the building can be considered as an exception to the mandatory provisions of MNECB. Therefore, we evaluate the impact of three (3) potential nonconformities of the building's walls on the building energy performance. In regards to article 3.1.1.1.4 of MNECB, there is an exception if it can be proved that permanent process (like heat recovery of refrigeration compressors) can produce at all times enough heat that no other heating source is required. First of all, by using simulation, we were able to indicate that almost all building's heating will be provided by energy recovery from ice rinks refrigeration systems (99.2%). Secondly, by using an energy analysis carried out with HEAT2 software, we can show that the increase of heating energy demand caused by the 3 studied walls is very low. This represents an increase of the heating energy demand of only 0.2%, and this, regardless of the heat recovery process. Because the nonconforming wall sections are small (0.97% of the envelope area), this mainly explains the minor impact in terms of building performance. In conclusion, according to the results obtained, we were able to recommend the building for consideration as an exception to the mandatory provisions of MNECB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".