Thermal performance of exterior roof level amenity space in a cold climate - a quantitative guidance tool for landscape design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are no known studies to quantify the effects of amenity space landscape structures located over habitable space as related to thermal performance. There are three main objectives for investigation in this MRP; Objective 1 – Thermal analysis of on-slab wall types, Objective 2 (O2) – Thermal analysis of example amenity space using results from O1, and Objective 3 (O3) – Recommended details that ‘work’ thermally and functionally. A quantitative methodology was utilized using 1D manual calculation (Glaser method) and 2D computer simulation (THERM) to study three CIP concrete wall conditions and variations which include; 1.0) base line condition, 2.0) modified condition, and 3.0) ultimate condition. Simulation results of O1 indicated that design of landscape walls could improve thermal performance by 55%, O2 found that there was an improvement of 60.5% between the worst and best performing conditions, and O3 recommended two wall variations to be utilized in landscape design which perform thermally and functionally. Keywords Thermal bridges, condominiums, MURBS, amenity space, landscape design, green roof, THERM
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".