MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620691485 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.05.003

Energy consumption analysis of school buildings in Manitoba, Canada

2017· article· en· W2620691485 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohamed Ouf, Mohamed Issa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Built Environment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba HydroU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)BusinessEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsEngineeringEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buildings contribute 20–40% of the world’s energy consumption, making the need to investigate their energy performance a necessity. Given the lack of empirical evidence on the energy performance of school buildings in cold climates, this study aimed to benchmark historical energy consumption over a ten-year period in a sample of 30 school buildings in Manitoba, Canada. Results showed the median total energy consumption of these schools was higher than other Canadian benchmarks. School building age had a statistically significant effect on their energy consumption, with newer schools consuming less gas but more electricity than older and middle-aged ones. The retrofits implemented in some schools did not for the most part have a statistically significant effect on their energy consumption, although a decrease in energy consumption was observed. The results also showed that middle-aged schools were the largest energy consumers, with the results changing depending on the metric used to report on schools’ energy consumption, reinforcing the need to standardize those metrics. There is also a need to investigate how occupancy may be contributing to the increase in electricity consumption in newer schools. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence on existing school buildings’ energy consumption in Manitoba, establishing benchmarks that practitioners can make use of in similar cold climates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations76
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Built EnvironmentSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207