R&D and Implementation Outcomes from the U.S.-India Bilateral Center for Building Energy Research and Development Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the role of international partnerships to facilitate low-energy building design, construction, and operations. We present the strategic approach, joint research and development outcomes, and implementation activities of a unique U.S.-India program on buildings energy efficiency, the Center for Building Energy Research and Development. We discuss the collaboration successes in both countries despite their dissimilar building contexts, implementation challenges and opportunities. We highlight a range of R&D outcomes, such as novel tools and technologies developed and tested by the joint teams, with their technical energy savings potential, as well as results of capacity building and technology demonstrations. A deep-dive into key new scientific methods around building energy monitoring and benchmarking that could have a significant impact on high-performanceof buildings in both countries is also provided. Finally, in addition to joint R&D successes, pathways to deployment, and lessons learned are discussed as key takeaways.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it