Overheating risk of a single-family detached house built at different ages under current and future climate in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the anticipated increase in temperature and solar radiation and frequency of extreme weather conditions due to climate change, buildings typically designed/built in Canadian cold climates would experience increased risks of summer overheating. This paper focuses on how these existing buildings perform under a current extreme year and projected future climates. Results show that the thermal conditions of a single-family detached house built in 1964 and 1990 are more comfortable than the house built to meet the current National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB) and high energy-efficient building (HEEB) without including natural ventilation by up to 50%. On the other hand, when natural ventilation is included, the house built to NECB and HEED are more comfortable. Sensitivity analysis is carried out to evaluate the influence of five design parameters, i.e. wall and roof insulation, airtightness, U-value and SHGC of windows. Sensitivity analysis shows that wall insulation, airtightness, and windows U-value are the three most significant parameters influencing the overheating risk without natural ventilation. With natural ventilation, the SHGC of windows is the most influencing parameter in reducing overheating risk. This paper confirms that the Canadian buildings have the overheating risk over the hot summer experienced over the past a few years and the risk will be increased in the future. Natural ventilation as a mitigation measure, which has been relied on by building designers in Canada will not be sufficient to remove excess heat or provide thermal comfort to residents. Other mitigation strategies such as shading to reduce the heat gain during the summer, are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".