Heating demand and indoor air temperature prediction in a residential building using physical and statistical models: a comparative study
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
Abstract In Canada, space heating accounts for the largest proportion of energy consumption in residential buildings. Therefore, accurately predicting the heating demand and interior temperature of a residential building plays a vital role in estimating the building’s total energy consumption with the consideration of thermal comfort. The prediction results obtained through different models could be used to develop predictive controllers to achieve peak shifting as well as to provide utility providers with valuable information for electric power distribution. Common methods to predict heating demand mainly include physical models and statistical methods. This study used two physical models (i.e. TRNSYS model and TRNSYS-CONTAM model) and one statistical model using supervised machine learning algorithm to predict the heating demand as well as the indoor temperature of a residential building, located in Quebec, Canada. Results show that TRNSYS-CONTAM model has higher accuracy than TRNSYS model no matter in terms of interior air temperature or heating demand prediction, while the statistical model shows better interior air temperature prediction result than physical models.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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