Closing the gap: an assessment of mixed-method data collection techniques in post occupancy evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demand for energy efficient buildings has supported an increase in predictive performance modeling. However, operation of buildings can often be different than predictive models, creating a collective performance discrepancy referred to as the “performance gap”. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) can close this gap by evaluating performance, and contrasting operational data to design intention. This POE demonstrates an identifiable performance gap in a practical case study on one high-performance building. Findings suggest the case building is not meeting anticipated energy consumption with a higher than predicted energy use intensity (EUI). Additional findings indicate a leaky building enclosure, significant thermal bridging, unrealistic simulation assumptions, acoustic disturbances, and occupant thermal comfort satisfaction. This POE demonstrates that mixed-method data collection provides more information than singular analyses when attempting to identify a performance gap. It is demonstrated that qualitative data collection techniques explain quantitative findings in analysis, informing understanding of performance gap causation.
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 | 0.430 | 0.503 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".