Energy and Economic Analysis for Greenhouse Ground Insulation Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy and life cycle cost analysis were employed to identify the most-cost effective ground envelope design for a greenhouse that employs supplemental lighting located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (45.4° N). The envelope design alternatives that were investigated consist of installing insulation vertically around the perimeter and horizontally beneath the footprint of a greenhouse with a concrete slab and unfinished soil floor. Detailed thermal interaction between the greenhouse and the ground surface is achieved by considering 3-dimensional conduction heat transfer within the TRNSYS 17.2 simulation software. The portion of total heat loss that occurred through the ground was approximately 4% and permutations in ground insulation design reduced heating energy consumption by up to 1%. For the two floor designs, the highest net savings was achieved when perimeter and floor zone horizontal insulation was installed whereas a financial loss occurred when it was also placed beneath the crop zone. However, in all cases, the improvement in economic performance was small (net savings below $4000 and reduction in life cycle under 0.2%). Combined energy and life cycle cost analysis is valuable for selecting optimal envelope designs that are capable of lowering energy consumption, improving economics and enhancing greenhouse durability.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it