A Comparative of Energy Efficiency of Luminaries for General Lighting for a Residential Building: CFL vs LED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents comparison study between two types of lighting technologies; the compact fluorescent lighting (CFL) and light emitting diode (LED) luminaries for home general lighting usage. This study includes all parts of the luminaries that include the lamp itself and the housing. An experimental test was done to verify the luminance produced by the two technologies. The generated energy of the two technologies was compared by using DIALUX software under the same lumen flux. Furthermore, the associated cost is also evaluated over the stipulated operational period which shows the most advantages of the LED technology over CFL although the initial capital cost for LED is 22% higher than CFL. However, this increment can be equalized by a short payback period of nearly 18 months for the case. This comparison shows that the LED luminaries have the advantages of a significant reduction in the environmental impact, i.e. reduction of 41-50% of greenhouse gas emission and energy demand, mainly due to lower energy utilization and substantial reduction of 60-78% in electrical consumption
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".