MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis on the driving factors and patterns of window opening and closing behaviour in French households

2019· article· en· W2982065771 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Li, Karthik Panchabikesan, Zhun Yu, Fariborz Haghighat, Mohamed El Mankibi, Guoqiang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupancyClosing (real estate)Window (computing)Energy consumptionPost-occupancy evaluationComputer scienceWork (physics)Architectural engineeringData collectionTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceStatisticsEngineeringBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Window operation plays a vital role in indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and building energy consumption while maintaining occupants’ expected IEQ levels. In recent years, the influencing factors of window opening/closing behaviour have been widely investigated and evaluated in residential buildings, aiming at simulating building energy performance in a realistic manner. However, due to the challenges in collecting and analysing occupancy-related data, previous research works emphasized more on indoor/outdoor parameters (e.g. temperature and CO2). Hence, the correlation between occupancy patterns with window behaviour in a household has not been well explored. The aim of this study is to analyse the patterns of window opening and closing behaviour in French households and identify respective driving factors. The analysis was based on the data collected from four apartments in a high-performance residential building located in Lyon, France. The dataset considered in this study includes indoor environment data, weather data and occupancy behaviour with one minute resolution. Both model-dependent and model-independent approaches were adopted to assess the relative importance of driving factors for window operation. The results obtained in this study will provide insights regarding different driving factors for window operation and its related impact on occupant behaviour model performance. The outcomes of this research work can be used as input variables of occupant behaviour models in order to improve the building energy simulation performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207