Understanding the energy performance GAP: case studies of energy efficient homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy performance gap between the predicted and actual energy consumption of 3 LEED for Homes certified buildings were investigated. The actual energy consumptions of the homes were found to be 23 to 77% higher than the initial energy consumption predictions made during the design stage. Revisions to the HOT2000 models to account for changes made between the design and occupancy phase of the buildings helped reduce the gap (9 to 40%). The sources of the discrepancies were found to be related to the energy modeling program’s limitations, inconsistency between the energy model and the actual building, and additional loads in the homes. The HOT2000 program, which is used for obtaining the EnerGuide rating for LEED certified homes, was compared against a dynamic energy simulation program to assess the applicability of the use of the former for energy efficient homes. The use of EnergyPlus not only allowed for a more accurate representation of the actual homes in the energy models, but an increase in the EnerGuide rating for the home was seen, which in turn equates to additional points for the home under the “Energy & Atmosphere” category for the LEED for Homes certification process
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".