MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294531097 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2017.164

Towards a Comprehensive Tool to Model Occupant Behaviour for Dwellings that Combines Domestic Hot Water Use with Active Occupancy

2017· article· en· W4294531097 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean L. Rouleau, Alfonso P. Ramallo-González, Louis Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupancyComputer scienceScale (ratio)Generator (circuit theory)Consumption (sociology)Operations researchCivil engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In building simulation, deterministic reference load profiles are normally used to represent domestic hot water (DHW) demand. Limited studies are found in the literature about the stochasticity of DHW consumption. As an attempt to fill this need, a stochastic end-user DHW demand model was constructed with temporal coherency with a well known occupancy generator. The tool uses aggregated data from national surveys to effectively scale occupant behaviour models built in different parts of the world to produce the output for a given configuration. This tuning procedure is necessary to account for variations of occupant behaviour between different countries. The model displayed great accuracy in predicting the building DHW demand when its outputs were compared with measurements made in a multiresidential building in Quebec City, Canada. At its current status, the tool can be used for US, Canadian and UK dwellings, but the idea could be expanded for other locations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207