Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low-temperature ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems make use of the solar energy stored in the Earth's crust. They are efficient alternatives for heating and cooling institutional and residential buildings in cold climates. Several institutional and residential GSHP systems have been implemented in Eastern Canada during the last two decades. This paper reviews five of them, mainly focusing on the systems’ configurations, the ground thermal behaviour vs. the outdoor temperature, and overall energy experimental performances. 1. INTRODUCTION The GSHP systems use the shallow ground as a heat source for heating institutional and residential buildings. During the cooling dominated periods, the sensible and latent heat removed from the buildings is stored in the ground and then partially recovered during the next heating season. In the case of large institutional buildings, the GSHP systems offer opportunities to save additional primary energy since the heat recovered from zones requiring cooling can be transferred to zones with simultaneous heating demands. They also allow using other free, inexhaustible and ecological energy sources, such as photovoltaic and thermal solar, engine cooling and combustion gases, and building exhaust air. The GSHP systems are highly efficiency, ensure a high and more uniform level of comfort and a higher level of consistency in the power demand of buildings. However, today, the main issue concerns optimizing their mechanical design and controls strategies in order to reduce the capital costs and thus increase their market acceptance in cold climates. This paper reviews a number of institutional and residential GSHP systems implemented and experimented in Canada during the last two decades. The reported results mainly focus on the systems general layouts, the geothermal fluid temperatures versus those of the ambient air, and annual energy consumptions and performances. 2. INSTITUTIONAL GSHP OPEN-LOOP SYSTEM
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".