Thermal performance and energy efficiency of PCM integrated buildings in eight cities located in snow, fully humid with warm summer climate region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phase change materials have been applied into building framework to reduce \nenergy and fossil fuel consumption as well as make building sector more \nsustainable.. In this study, the energy consumption assessment of lightweight twostorey \nPCM-enhanced residential house placed at different eight locations (Helsinki, \nKiev, Saint-Petersburg, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Montreal and Kiev) \nrestricted by Dfb climate region will be evaluated. The number of iterations were \nperformed by DesignBuilder software combined with Energy Plus engine by \napplying eleven melting temperature ranges of PCM. The output shows that the \noptimal PCMs have reduced the temperature swings up to 2.4 ℃. The performance \nof PCM is not constant for the monthly assessment basis, hence every month \ndifferent PCM have performed efficiently. The optimal PCM variance is between \nthe thermal comfort zone (20-26℃) and depends on the geographical parameters. \nFor the indicator cities, the energy consumption varies from 2,81% to 5,72%. The \nvolumetric assessment may be shows that the efficient performance of PCM \nincreases with expansion of surface area combined with reduction of thickness. \nOverall, the enhancement of PCM into building framework in residential building \nlocated in Dfb climate region is feasible option.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".