MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236370022 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2019.211250

Building Energy Use Surrogate Model Feature Selection – A Methodology Using Forward Stepwise Selection and LASSO Regression Methods

2020· article· en· W4236370022 on OpenAlexafffund
Erica C. Barnes, J.J. McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsLasso (programming language)Feature selectionStepwise regressionSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceRegressionElastic net regularizationMachine learningRegression analysisEnergy (signal processing)Surrogate modelFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical regression models were developed to permit the rapid modelling of large commercial office buildings within a single climate zone.The regression models are developed using a large number of building parameters and their hourly energy model simulated results.In previous building energy regression modelling, there is a research gap in selecting building parameters using statistical approaches.This paper investigates a feature selection method, including forward stepwise selection and LASSO regression, to identify building parameters that, together, have the most significant impact on total building energy load.The regression model, with 25 features selected through this methodology, predicts total energy load at 93.5% accuracy, on average.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207