On the effects of variation of thermal conductivity in buildings in the Italian construction sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stationary and dynamic heat and mass transfer analyses of building components are an essential part of energy efficient design of new and retrofitted buildings. Generally, a single constant thermal conductivity value is assumed for each material layer in construction components. However, the variability of thermal conductivity may depend on many factors; temperature and moisture content are among the most relevant ones. A linear temperature dependence of thermal conductivity has been found experimentally for materials made of inorganic fibers such as rockwool or fiberglass, showing lower thermal conductivities at lower temperatures. On the contrary, a nonlinear temperature dependence has been found for foamed insulation materials like polyisocyanurate, with a significant deviation from linear behavior. For this reason, thermal conductivity assumptions used in thermal calculations of construction components and in whole-building performance simulations have to be critically questioned. This study aims to evaluate how temperature affects thermal conductivity of materials in building components such as exterior walls and flat roofs in different climate conditions. Therefore, experimental conductivities measured for four common insulation materials have been used as a basis to simulate the behavior of typical construction components in three different Italian climate conditions, corresponding to the cities of Turin, Rome, and Palermo
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".