MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921362835 · doi:10.3390/wsf-00561

Energy Cost of Energy Saving in Building: A Review

2011· review· en· W2921362835 on OpenAlexaff
Yvan Dutil, Daniel R. Rousse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy Efficiency and Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEfficient energy useContext (archaeology)ClearanceEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceYardstickArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental economicsEnergy accountingRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often claimed that the cheapest energy is the one you do not need to produce. Nevertheless, this claim is somewhat unsubstantiated. In this article, we try to shed some light on this issue by using the energy return on investment (EROI) as a yardstick. This choice brings semantic issues because the EROI is used in a different context than that of energy production. Indeed, while watt and negawatt share the same physical unit, they are not the same object, which brings some ambiguities in the interpretation of EROI. These are cleared by a refined definition of EROI and an adapted nomenclature. This review studied the research in the energy efficiency of building operation, which is one of the most investigated topics in energy efficiency. Impact of insulation, high efficiency windows, and other energy efficiency measures were considered. These results were normalized for climate, life time of the building, and construction material. In many cases, energy efficiency measures imply a very high EROI. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, this is not the case and it might be more profitable to produce the required energy than trying to save it.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficiency and ManagementFrench-language works237,207