MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236667745 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2019.210308

Development and Analysis of Simplified Control-oriented Models for a Group of Institutional Offices

2020· article· en· W4236667745 on OpenAlexafffund
Jayson Bursill, William O’Brien, Ian Beausoleil-Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most zone or room level control-oriented models are developed with opaque and varying workflows. The workflows vary depending on whether the models are white or black box. In this paper the focus is applied to inverse modelling. The contribution of this paper is the application of a simple prescribed workflow for generating inverse models of a group of offices that can be applied by those less experienced with inverse modelling. The goal of the models is to predict indoor air temperature at the next time step for each room with reasonable accuracy. Measurements were taken in 27 offices for a period of one month. These data were used to fit and validate office level control-oriented inverse models using the MATLAB System Identification Toolbox. The maximum mean absolute error (MAE) for any office over the two-week validation period was 0.31°C and the average MAE for all 27 offices was 0.15°C.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207