Simple models for the operation of partially transparent radiative windows and their comparison to the radiative coolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we solve approximately the radiative heat transfer problem in one dimension to perform a comparative analysis of the time averaged performance of the partially transparent radiative windows and radiative coolers. Our physical model includes the atmosphere, the window, and the backwall that are all in the thermal equilibrium with each other, and that can exchange energy via radiative heat transfer or convection. Moreover, we use a simplified two-state model for the optical properties of an atmosphere and a window material which assumes two distinct sets of the optical reflection/absorption/transmission parameters in the visible/near-IR versus mid-IR spectral ranges. Furthermore, we have distinguished the design goals for the partially transparent windows and radiative coolers and provided optimal choice for the material parameters to realize these goals. Thus, radiative coolers are normally non-transparent in the visible, and the main goal is to design a cooler with the temperature of its dark side as low as possible compared to that of the atmosphere. For the radiative windows, however, their surfaces are necessarily partially transparent in the visible. In the cooling mode, therefore, the main question is about the maximal visible light transmission through the window at which the temperature on the window somber side does not exceed that of the atmosphere. We believe that our simple physical models complimented with an in-depth comparative analysis of the radiative windows and coolers can be of interest to a number of scientists and engineers pursuing research in these disciplines.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".