A Practical Alternative Wall System to Promote Buildings Energy Efficiency: A Comparative Environmental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development in science and technology in the building industry has proven that the use of traditional construction methods has become undesirable because of its adverse effects on the building itself in terms of weight and thermal performance, thus affecting the energy efficiency of the building.Reducing energy consumption is a high-priority issue at various societal and economic levels.Thermal performance is the extent to which the design of a building responds to the daily and seasonal changing in climatic conditions.Designing buildings that achieve thermal comfort in harmony with the external environment requires involving appropriate modern technologies.The present simulation-based research assesses thermal performances by testing different wall systems, which are Brick Wall (BW), Cellular Concrete Wall (CCW), Concrete Block Wall (CBW), and Izocrete Block Wall (IBW).The thermal performance of a wall system is characterized by its surface temperature when exposed to solar radiation.Preliminary results indicate that the new technology of wall systems plays a vital role in reducing temperature swings, which leads to reducing the internal temperature and thus promotes the building's energy efficiency.The IBW was found to be efficient and best during the test period, followed by CCW.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".