Summary of proceedings of the first meeting of the executive committee on building and community systems. Electricity council Research Centre, Capenhurst, United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Energy Agency (IEA) meeting on Building and Community Systems was conducted in three phases. First, participants toured the Electricity Council Research Centre (ECRC) research facilities to observe the ECRC's building research activities and to receive information on their ongoing research into energy usage in buildings. The final meeting of the Experts Group on Building and Community Systems was then held on May 4. During this meeting, analysts discussed the progress of their analysis of office buildings that has been conducted since the October, 1976, Experts Group meeting in Stockholm. In accordance with IEA rules, this Experts Group was then abolished and an Executive Committee on Buildings and Community Systems created to direct further work in this project area. This action reflects the signing in March of the Implementing Agreement on Building and Community Systems and Annex I on Thermal Characteristics by the United States, Canada, and Italy. The discussion of study activities, begun by the Experts Group, was continued at this Executive Committee meeting. Sections I and II describe the meetings of the Experts Group and Executive Committee. Section III describes the field trip at the ECRC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.204 | 0.090 |
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".