BECOP: A New Metric for Measuring the Energy Performance of the Building Envelope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal properties of the building envelope (BE) prescribed by codes and standards do not provide a consistent and comprehensive measure of its performance. Qualitative comparative analysis employed by the codes to assess energy savings is deterrent to technology development as the potential energy savings are never realized. A new metric, referred to as the building envelope coefficient of performance (BECOP), is proposed, which compares the BE performance to an ideal system. BECOP, which is invariant to calculation methods and applicable to all building types and climate zones, is a comprehensive metric for assessing the thermal performance of building envelopes while accounting for the various building characteristics. The sensitivity and range of BECOP were assessed for Canadian climate and construction methods. Using case studies, BECOP results revealed that current practices and regulations pertaining to the building envelope are inconsistent and fail to provide any measure of efficiency. It was also found that current building envelope technologies are not energy efficient. A max BECOP value of 35% is obtained for the best building envelope technology, revealing inefficiencies and energy saving potentials.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".