MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II

2018· article· en· W2809095263 on OpenAlexaff
Veronika Földváry Ličina, Toby Cheung, Hui Zhang, Richard de Dear, Thomas Parkinson, Edward Arens, Chungyoon Chun, Stefano Schiavon, Maohui Luo, Gail Brager, Peixian Li, Soazig Kaam, Michael Adebamowo, Mary Myla Andamon, Francesco Babich, Chiheb Bouden, Hana Pustayová Bukovianska, Christhina Cândido, Bin Cao, Salvatore Carlucci, David Cheong, Joon-Ho Choi, Malcolm Cook, Paul Cropper, Max Deuble, Shahin Heidari, Madhavi Indraganti, Quan Jin, Hyojin Kim, Jungsoo Kim, Kyle Konis, Manoj Kumar Singh, Alison G. Kwok, Roberto Lamberts, D.L. Loveday, Jared Langevin, Sanyogita Manu, Cornelia Moosmann, Fergus Nicol, Ryozo Ooka, Nigel Oseland, Lorenzo Pagliano, Dušan Petráš, Rajan Rawal, Ramona Romero, Hom Bahadur Rijal, Chandra Sekhar, Marcel Schweiker, Federico Tartarini, Shin‐ichi Tanabe, Kwok Wai Tham, Despoina Teli, Jørn Toftum, Linda Toledo, Kazuyo Tsuzuki, Renata De Vecchi, Andreas Wagner, Zhaojun Wang, Holger Wallbaum, Lynda Webb, Liu Yang, Yingxin Zhu, Yongchao Zhai, Yufeng Zhang, Xiang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding and Environment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenter for the Built EnvironmentUniversity of SydneyGovernment of the United KingdomNational Research FoundationAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning EngineersUniversity of California BerkeleyYonsei UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsASHRAE 90.1DatabaseThermal comfortArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMeteorologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.021

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations456
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBuilding and EnvironmentSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207