Data Ontology Assessment To Support Smart And Ongoing Commissioning Of Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve Canada’s GHG reduction targets, building performance must be improved. Enabling buildings with Smart and Ongoing Commissioning (SOCx) applications will help to achieve peak performance in energy use and improved occupant health and comfort, at minimum cost. A comprehensive literature review highlighted the viability of Brick and Project Haystack ontologies, prompting a quantitative comparison of completeness and expressiveness using a case study with an industry ontology as the baseline for comparison. Additionally, a qualitative comparison was completed using key ontology qualities outlined in literature. A recommendation of Brick is made based on results. Brick achieved higher assessment values in completeness and expressiveness achieving 59% and 100% respectively, as compared to Haystacks 43% and 96%. Additionally, Brick exhibited five of six desirable qualities, where Haystack exhibited only three. If used by SOCx applications, the appropriate ontology permits the optimization of building performance. The recommendation of the appropriate ontology forms the basis for longer- term SOCx prototype development, which will support innovative approaches to sustainability in building operations across scale, as well as next- generation building controls and automation strategies.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".