MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790515006 · doi:10.3390/en11040704

Methodology for the Study of the Envelope Airtightness of Residential Buildings in Spain: A Case Study

2018· article· en· W2790515006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jesús Feijó-Muñoz, Irene Poza-Casado, Roberto Alonso González‐Lezcano, Cristina Pardal, Víctor Echarri Iribarren, Rafael Assiego de Larriva, Jésica Fernández-Agüera, María Jesús Dios-Viéitez, Victor José del Campo Díaz, Manuel Montesdeoca Calderín, Miguel Ángel Padilla-Marcos, Alberto Meiss

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Social FundMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsBuilding envelopeCabin pressurizationEngineeringEnergy performanceArchitectural engineeringIndoor air qualityNatural ventilationEnvironmental scienceEnvelope (radar)Civil engineeringVentilation (architecture)Efficient energy useEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyGeographyMechanical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air leakage and its impact on the energy performance of dwellings has been broadly studied in countries with cold climates in Europe, US, and Canada. However, there is a lack of knowledge in this field in Mediterranean countries. Current Spanish building regulations establish ventilation rates based on ideal airtight envelopes, causing problems of over-ventilation and substantial energy losses. The aim of this paper is to develop a methodology that allows the characterization of the envelope of the housing stock in Spain in order to adjust ventilation rates taking into consideration air leakage. A methodology that is easily applicable to other countries that consider studying the airtightness of the envelope and its energetic behaviour improvement is proposed. A statistical sampling method has been established to determine the dwellings to be tested, considering relevant variables concerning airtightness: climate zone, year of construction, and typology. The air leakage rate is determined using a standardized building pressurization technique according to European Standard EN 13829. A representative case study has been presented as an example of the implementation of the designed methodology and results are compared to preliminary values obtained from the database.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207