MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211955568 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652369.v1

Assessment of the Thermal Performance of Data Center; A Case Study in Earth Rangers Centre

2021· preprint· en· W3211955568 on OpenAlexaff
Ladan Vahidi-Arbabi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySciencetech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData centerChillerHeat exchangerComputer scienceCenter (category theory)Heat sinkEnergy conservationThermalExperimental dataData collectionField (mathematics)Environmental scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMeteorologyGeographyMathematicsStatisticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal performance of complex buildings like data centers is not easy to evaluate. Experimental Investigation of the effects of energy conservation methods or any alteration that might occur in hundreds of variables in data centres would cost stakeholders time and money. And they might find worthless at times. Building energy model is a well-established field of science with an insufficient number of applications in data centers. This study presents methods of developing a data center model based on an actual case study. Moreover, it identifies effective calibrating strategies to increase the model performance accuracy relative to a recorded dataset. A reliable energy model can assist data center operators and researchers in different ways. As a result, calibrated energy model proved Earth Rangers’ data center can be independent of a heat pump or chiller use for most of the year, while ground heat exchangers deliver excessive heat to the ground as the heat sink.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207