MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285492744 · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31527-6

Decapod-inspired pigment modulation for active building facades

2022· article· en· W4285492744 on OpenAlexafffund
Raphael Kay, Charlie Katrycz, Kevin Nitièma, J. Alstan Jakubiec, Benjamin D. Hatton

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDaylightElectrochromismComputer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)Environmental scienceFluidicsModulation (music)ShadingSunlightMaterials scienceEnergy (signal processing)Automotive engineeringSimulationAcousticsOpticsAerospace engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical buildings are static structures, unable to adjust to dynamic temperature and daylight fluctuations. Adaptive facades that are responsive to these unsteady solar conditions can substantially reduce operational energy inefficiencies, indoor heating, cooling, and lighting costs, as well as greenhouse-gas emissions. Inspired by marine organisms that disperse pigments within their skin, we propose an adaptive building interface that uses reversible fluid injections to tune optical transmission. Pigmented fluids with tunable morphologies are reversibly injected and withdrawn from confined layers, achieving locally-adjustable shading and interior solar exposure. Multicell arrays tiled across large areas enable differential and dynamic building responses, demonstrated using both experimental and simulated approaches. Fluidic reconfigurations can find optimal states over time to reduce heating, cooling, and lighting energy in our models by over 30% compared to current available electrochromic technologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207