Energy code compliant house design for lowest lifecycle cost based on market-available technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigating code-compliant and market-available options for building envelope, domestic systems, and solar photovoltaic systems accounting for construction and operational cost, the near-lowest lifecycle cost (LCC) design compliant with building energy codes is identifiable following the methodology proposed in this study. A case study of a house design in Edmonton, Canada, is conducted to demonstrate the methodology; the 30-year LCC of options for code-compliance are calculated for three energy cost scenarios. The results indicate that the most cost-effective design may have a 16% to 30% lower LCC than other investigated designs. In terms of achieving a similar level of energy performance, a house that uses a heat recovery ventilator, forced-air gas-fired space heating system, tankless water heater, and features a less-insulated building envelope offers the lowest LCC. The results of this study suggest that LCC should be considered in the development of building energy regulations to include economic aspects while proposing energy standards.
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 | 0.001 | 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".