MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296378954 · doi:10.1177/1420326x221121519

Airtightness evaluation of Canadian dwellings and influencing factors based on measured data and predictive models

2022· article· en· W4296378954 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maysoun Ismaiel, Maged Gouda, Yong Li, Yuxiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIndoor and Built Environment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceIndoor air qualityAir changeEngineeringRegression analysisLeakage (economics)Civil engineeringMeteorologyStatisticsEnvironmental engineeringGeographyMathematicsMechanical engineeringVentilation (architecture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airtightness of buildings has a significant impact on buildings' energy efficiency, maintenance and occupant comfort. The main goal of this study is to provide an evaluation of the air leakage characteristics of dwellings in different regions in Canada. This study evaluated the key influencing factors on airtightness performance based on a large set of measured data (73,450 dwellings located in Canada with 11 measurement parameters for each). Machine learning models based on multivariate regression (MVR) and Random Forest Ensemble (RFE) were developed to predict the air leakage value. The RFE model, which shows better results than MVR, was used to evaluate the effect of the ageing of buildings. Results showed that the maximum increase in air leakage occurs during the first year after construction - approximately 25%, and then 3.7% in the second year, after which the increase rate becomes insignificant and relatively constant - approximately 0.3% per year. The findings from this study can provide significant information for building designs, building performance simulations and strengthening standards and guidelines policies on indoor environmental quality.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndoor and Built EnvironmentSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207