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 OpenAlexafffundabout
Chamila Jayanuwan Liyanage

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Engineering and Technology ResearchSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207