A reality-based energy analysis of high-performance residences: Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research initiative attempts to empirically determine, with reality-based (real instead of modeled) performance data from energy suppliers, the energy advantage associated with building high performance residence in Victoria, BC. In addition, this initiative created a much-needed benchmark for contractors to gain a firm understanding of the construction details required to achieve the various levels of the “Step Code” in the newest edition of the British Columbia Building Code. This was accomplished through a comparative energy analysis between a case-study high-performance “above-code residence” (ACR) to a “minimum code residence” (MCR) with the same floor plan. The ACR was built in 2015 before the step code was introduced, and therefore it was not determined what step level it achieved when it was built. It was not built to any particular performance standard, rather it was built using design details that were calculated to exceed Part 9 performance in effective R-value and airtightness. Upon investigation it was determined that the ACR achieved a performance level of “Step 3” bordering on “Step 4” performance. When compared to the MCR, it was found that the ACR has an energy advantage of 22.5 kWh/m2/year. However, many of the components in the ACR assemblies were either for aesthetic appeal (metal-roofing), or comfort (floor-cavity insulation), and therefore it was possible to remove these components (which is important for Part II of this study: An in-depth cost analysis between the two residences) while maintaining an energy advantage of 15 kWh/m2/year and step level 3 designation. This was dubbed the hybrid-residence as it employed a combination of above-code and minimum-code construction assemblies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".