MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083857439 · doi:10.32393/csme.2020.13

Development of a Novel Radiant Floor System

2020· article· en· W3083857439 on OpenAlexaff
Saunak Shukla, Aggrey Mwesigye, Wey H. Leong, Seth B. Dworkin

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiant floor systems have the potential to reduce energy consumption and the carbon footprint of buildings. They exhibit quiet operation, minimal airborne dust production, and furniture space savings. Traditional radiant floor heating systems consist of a heat source-hot water pipes or electrical heating wires, embedded in concrete and other building materials. However, traditional radiant floor heating systems are more expensive than conventional forced-air systems, and there is still potential for improved heat transfer efficiency with novel design improvements. Also, they cannot be easily retrofitted and the tendency of concrete to hold heat makes them less responsive to fluctuations in thermal loads. This study analyzed a novel radiant panel configuration comprising a metal plate with small spikes that can be pressed into cement board or wood. The spikes can serve two purposes they can bind materials together reducing manufacturing costs and improve heat transfer. The proposed radiant panel is easy to retrofit as it is relatively thin (approximately two inches) and the top layer utilizes hardwood. This top layer is structurally sufficient to take the impact from building occupants. The bottom most layer of the proposed radiant configuration is subfloor plywood which acts as insulation for minimizing the heat transmitted into the ground.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3Same topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207