MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245677217 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662017

Reducing linear thermal bridging in passive house details

2021· preprint· en· W4245677217 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Balicki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySciencetech (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)ThermalPassive houseComputer scienceProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess (computing)Materials scienceValue (mathematics)Efficient energy useArchitectural engineeringNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Major Research Project focuses on reducing the linear thermal bridging coefficient (ψ-value) in junction details in Passive Houses in North America. By analyzing a sample of details from existing Passive Houses in North America, the range of ψ-values was found to be between -0.154 and 0.124 W/mK. A process was outlined to lower the ψ-value in junction details. Strategies that can be used to reduce the ψ-value include: localized overcladding, thermal breaks, alternative material, and alternative construction. The first and last strategies were found to be most effective at reducing the ψ-value. Comparing the results of PHPP simulations for several houses, with and without linear thermal bridging, showed that the impact on the specific heating energy intensity can be large. The PHPP models showed that savings of 6-25% on the specific heating energy intensity can be achieved by applying the reduction process to details above 0.01 W/mK.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207