MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200471682 · doi:10.3389/frsc.2021.700794

Impact of Window-to-Wall Ratio on Heating Demand and Thermal Comfort When Considering a Variety of Occupant Behavior Profiles

2021· article· en· W4200471682 on OpenAlexafffund
Debby Veillette, Jean L. Rouleau, Louis Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sustainable Cities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsThermal comfortComputer scienceScheduleParametric statisticsEnergy consumptionVariance (accounting)SimulationEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy consumption and thermal comfort in residential buildings are highly influenced by occupant behavior, which exhibits a high level of day-to-day and dwelling-to-dwelling variance. Although occupant behavior stochastic models have been developed in the past, the analysis or selection of a building design parameter is typically based on simulations that use a single “average” occupant behavior schedule which does not account for all possible profiles. The objective of this study is to enhance the understanding of how window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of a residential unit affects heating demand and thermal comfort when considering occupant behavior diversity through a parametric analysis. To do so, a stochastic occupant behavior model generates a high number of possible profiles, which are then used as input in an energy simulation of the dwelling. As a result, one obtains probability distributions of energy consumption and comfort for different WWR values. The paper shows that the shape of the probability distributions is affected by WWR and dwelling orientation, and that the influence of different occupant behavior aspects on performance also varies with WWR. This work could help designers to better assess the impact of WWR for a large spectrum of possible occupant behavior profiles.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sustainable CitiesSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207