MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391909319 · doi:10.24018/ejeng.2024.9.1.3145

Thermal Modeling and Electric Space Heating of a University Building in Newfoundland

2024· article· en· W4391909319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Engineering and Technology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsThermalSpace (punctuation)Architectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering physicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buildings play a substantial role in global energy consumption, constituting a considerable share of the overall energy use. In Canada, they contribute to around 25% of the total final energy consumption. Notably, space heating emerges as the primary energy consumer, accounting for approximately 57% of energy utilization in institutional and commercial buildings. This paper presents a feasibility analysis of converting the space heating system of the Core Science Facility (CSF) building of Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN). Analysis is done using RETScreen Clean Energy Management Software, known as RETScreen Expert, a software package developed by the Government of Canada, and the thermal modeling of the building using Energy3D, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The feasibility study indicates that significant savings can be achieved if space heating is switched to electric resistive heating. The results indicate a 24.2% savings in annual energy costs, with a simple payback period of 10.5 years. The simulation results from Energy3D are compared with the measured building energy consumption data provided by the MUN Facilities Management Department. The thermal model indicates less energy consumption than the actual measured values, which is a result of transmission losses, the interconnection between the CSF building and the University Center, building occupancy, the ventilation system, and degradation of equipment that are not considered in the model.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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