MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235572088 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644800.v1

Energy Benchmarking and Energy Saving Assessment in High-Rise Multi-Unit Residential Buildings

2021· preprint· en· W4235572088 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yirong Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsBenchmarkingBenchmark (surveying)Energy (signal processing)Energy consumptionRange (aeronautics)Unit (ring theory)Normalization (sociology)Environmental scienceEfficient energy useComputer scienceEnvironmental economicsArchitectural engineeringMeteorologyEngineeringStatisticsBusinessMathematicsGeographyEconomicsElectrical engineeringAerospace engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of energy benchmarking is to promote efficient use of energy. Knowing that the energy used by a building is excessive is the first step in making positive changes. Based on an energy benchmark, one can estimate the potential in energy and cost savings when pursuing better performance. This thesis developed weather normalized energy benchmarking of 45 gas-heated high-rise multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) in Toronto. The weather normalized annual energy consumption (NAC) was calculated by the PRInceton Scorekeeping Method (PRISM). The NACs are in the range from 242 to 453 kWh/m The NACs, calculated by the simple ratio weather normalization (SRWN) method and ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Management (PM) method were comparable to PRISM results. However, the SRWN method tends to overestimate the energy saving by 23% while PM underestimates it by 21%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207