MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299649591

Summary of proceedings of the first meeting of the executive committee on building and community systems. Electricity council Research Centre, Capenhurst, United Kingdom

2015· paratext· en· W4299649591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2015
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicRenewable Energy and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExecutive committeeResearch councilElectricityExecutive summaryKingdomPolitical sciencePublic administrationLibrary scienceEngineeringEngineering managementManagementComputer scienceBusinessElectrical engineeringEconomicsGeologyFinanceGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicRenewable Energy and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207