MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951049935 · doi:10.30501/jree.2018.88491

Comprehensive Evaluation of Using Solar Water Heater on a Household Scale in Canada

2018· article· en· W2951049935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mehdi Jahangiri, Akbar Alidadi Shamsabadi, Hamed Saghaei

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater heatingHydropowerEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringSolar energyWaste managementSolar water heatingWater heaterEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian researchers are now trying to exploit much more energy from solar sources, hydropower, wind, and biomass. Given the fact that reducing the carbon pollutant level is a political priority in Canada, this paper studies the feasibility of providing sanitary hot water and space heating demands of a four-member family in 10 provinces in this country. The feasibility analysis was performed by T*SOL Pro 5.5 software, and radiation data were obtained by MeteoSyn software. Results indicated that the most suitable station in terms of using solar water heater was Regina, which supplied 35 % of the total heat load for space heating and sanitary hot water purposes. This accounted for 5074 kWh of heat for space heating (25 % of demand) and 3112 kWh energy for sanitary hot water (94 % of demand) using a 40 m2 solar collector. In addition, results are indicative of an annual amount of saving up to 2080 kg of CO2 in the Regina station and an annual reduction of 984 m3 in natural gas for this station. In conclusion, Canada has a potentially alluring market to utilize solar water heaters for providing sanitary hot water for the residential sector.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207