MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of design calculations for radiant ceiling panels incorporating phase change materials (PCMs)

2023· article· en· W4389223825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eva Švarcová, Jun Shinoda, Dragos‐Ioan Bogatu, Ongun Berk Kazanci, Dušan Petráš, Bjarne W. Olesen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling (cloud)Phase changeMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringStructural engineeringEngineering physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermally active building systems (TABS) show significant benefits such as providing peak load shifting, peak load reductions, and energy savings. Phase change material (PCM) applications with water circulation have benefits similar to TABS, but PCMs can store more heat per unit volume than concrete due to the latent heat exchange. Radiant panels with PCM can be applied in building retrofit, which gives this application a significant advantage compared to TABS. A design methodology for determining heat flux does not exist though for dimensioning a radiant ceiling system that incorporates PCM. Design methods according to standards for TABS – ISO 11855-2 and for radiant panels – ISO 18566-3 were investigated. Five radiant ceiling panels incorporating PCM were selected from Denmark, Canada, Germany, the Czech Republic and Latvia. The resulting heat flux between the panel and conditioned space, i.e. the room, following methods represented in the standards, were compared with the measured or simulated values reported in the literature. The comparison showed that the calculation for TABS (ISO 11855-2) led to similar results to the measured or simulated values.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.071 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207