MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017598778 · doi:10.1080/15583058.2020.1753261

Balancing Trade-offs between Deep Energy Retrofits and Heritage Conservation: A Methodology and Case Study

2020· article· en· W3017598778 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Larissa Ide, Michael Gutland, Scott Bucking, Mario Santana Quintero

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Heritage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnergy conservationEnergy consumptionBuilding envelopeEngineeringEfficient energy useSustainabilityRetrofittingEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringCultural heritageDocumentationDaylightArchitectural engineeringThermalMeteorologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drastic reductions in energy consumption within existing buildings are required to achieve climate change mitigation targets. However, a portion of existing buildings have important historic values that need to be conserved. The goal of this paper is to present a methodology and decision-framework for deep energy retrofit analyses that balances trade-offs between conservation and sustainability. This methodology includes historic recording, documentation, a detailed energy model, and calibration to monthly data. An historic house in Ottawa, Canada is studied to demonstrate the use of the methodology. The energy retrofit analysis suggests 67% energy savings are achievable by increasing envelope thermal resistance to 4.1 m2-K/W, reducing air infiltration by 70% to 4.2 ACH at 50 Pa through air sealing and an air-vapour barrier, rehabilitating windows to be triple-pane low-E assemblies, using an air-source heat pump to supplement the existing gas boiler, daylight sensors and controls, and solar PV panels.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architectural HeritageSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207