Developing a common approach for classifying building stock energy models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buildings contribute 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions ; therefore, strategies that can substantially reduce emissions from the building stock are key components of broader efforts to mitigate climate change and achieve sustainable development goals . Models that represent the energy use of the building stock at scale under various scenarios of technology deployment have become essential tools for the development and assessment of such strategies. Within the past decade, the capabilities of building stock energy models have improved considerably, while model transferability and sharing has increased. Given these advancements, a new scheme for classifying building stock energy models is needed to facilitate communication of modeling approaches and the handling of important model dimensions. In this article, we present a new building stock energy model classification framework that leverages international modeling expertise from the participants of the International Energy Agency's Annex 70 on Building Energy Epidemiology. Drawing from existing classification studies, we propose a multi-layer quadrant scheme that classifies modeling techniques by their design (top-down or bottom-up) and degree of transparency (black-box or white-box); hybrid techniques are also addressed. The quadrant scheme is unique from previous classification approaches in its non-hierarchical organization, coverage of and ability to incorporate emerging modeling techniques, and treatment of additional modeling dimensions. The new classification framework will be complemented by a reporting protocol and online registry of existing models as part of ongoing work in Annex 70 to increase the interpretability and utility of building stock energy models for energy policy making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".