PHIUS vs. PHI Through the Lens of Multi-unit Residential Buildings Across Canadian Climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy efficient construction in Canada is where the built environment is heading in order to achieve the carbon budget targets set for the country. Standards such as Passive House are just one way that this can be achieved. There are two main standards in North America, PHIUS (Passive House Institute United States) and PHI (Passive House Institute). The goal of the study was to determine differences between the two standards and through two building designs, model them across the 7 climate zones selected, in order to determine which standard might be more adaptable to our varying climates in Canada. Two case studies were used from Hamilton, Ontario, and were modeled in both PHIUS and PHI in this climate. All 4 models were then modeled in 6 additional climate zones all over the country to determine how adaptable the standard is to each location, and what is required to get these buildings to meet the requirements if they were failing. Through this analysis the study uncovered what changes were required for colder climates like Saskatoon and milder climates like Vancouver, in order for the original building designs to pass in their new climate. This analysis not only pointed out the differences and flaws in the standards, but also provided an understanding of which standard can produce the most efficient building for a particular location. Milder climates adapted to both PHI and PHIUS, whereas climates with a lot of variability excelled in the PHIUS standard. The study provided encouraging and informative data to home builders and developers that are considering contributing to the energy efficient built environment, and what is required to get there.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".