MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ten questions concerning thermal resilience of buildings and occupants for climate adaptation

2023· article· en· W4386496142 on OpenAlexaff
Tianzhen Hong, Jeetika Malik, Amanda F. Krelling, William O’Brien, Kaiyu Sun, Roberto Lamberts, Max Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding and Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyInternational Energy AgencyBuilding Technologies OfficeCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorDivision of Graduate Education
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Extreme weatherAdaptation (eye)Climate changeArchitectural engineeringExtreme heatThermal comfortPsychological resilienceHeat waveEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringGeographyMeteorologyPsychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With climate change leading to more frequent, more intense, and longer durations of extreme weather events such as heat waves and cold snaps, it is essential to maintain safe indoor environmental conditions for occupants during such events, which may coincide with, or even cause, power outages that expose residents to health risks. Analyzing the impacts of extreme weather events on the thermal resilience of buildings can help stakeholders (including occupants) understand the risk and inform them about mitigation and adaptation actions. Moreover, analyzing the technological, social and policy dimensions of thermal resilience is critical for climate-proofing buildings. This paper presents 10 questions that highlight the most important issues regarding the thermal resilience of buildings for occupants in the face of climate change. The proposed questions and answers aim to provide insights into current and future building thermal resilience research and applications, and more importantly to inspire new significant questions in the field.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations135
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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