MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809614682 · doi:10.1080/17512549.2018.1488617

Application of passive measures for energy conservation in buildings – a review

2018· review· en· W2809614682 on OpenAlexaff
Farhad Amirifard, Seyed Amirhosain Sharif, Fuzhan Nasiri

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Building Energy Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringGlazingBuilding envelopeDaylightingEnergy consumptionPassive coolingPassive solar building designThermal insulationEnergy conservationSolar gainCapital costThermal massEfficient energy useEngineeringEnergy performanceNatural ventilationCivil engineeringMechanical engineeringVentilation (architecture)Solar energyThermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant share of the total primary energy belongs to buildings. In many buildings, the energy usage can be significantly reduced by adopting passive strategies. These methods might not need additional capital investment. For instance, an integrated building renovation approach, in which passive methods are implemented, can reduce the energy consumption of building, compensating the additional cost of new technologies. This paper strives to make a technical review of the passive measures in buildings. A categorization of passive energy measures is provided. The review explores several types of insulation materials along with their selection criteria. Application of thermal mass as a redeemable energy technique is also discussed. In addition, performance of different techniques including heating and cooling flow control, optimum place and thickness of insulation, air transport control, water vapour control, natural heating, cooling, and lighting are presented. Advancements in these techniques including the naturally-ventilated envelope, Trombe walls, sunspaces, natural daylighting, sun shading, fenestration, glazing materials and framing, are also discussed. It is concluded that despite their performance in decreasing energy consumption, implementing the most effective combination of these passive technologies, with respect to the characteristics of the buildings, has remained a big challenge for building designers/managers.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations79
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Building Energy ResearchSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207