MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of window opening in arctic community housing and development of data-driven models

2024· article· en· W4396621968 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alice Cavalerie, Louis Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding and Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSentinelle Nord, Université LavalFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsWindow (computing)ArcticEnvironmental scienceThe arcticGeographyMeteorologyEnvironmental planningComputer scienceGeologyOceanographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving low-energy, comfortable buildings in remote Arctic regions like Nunavik, Canada, presents multiple challenges due to high heating demand and limited energy supply. Understanding human behavior and the impact of practices on energy use is a key element in improving building performance. While previous research on building performance in Arctic regions has often adopted a building-centered approach, this study offers a complementary approach by investigating occupant behavior, focusing on window openings. The sample includes 10 monitored houses in the village of Quaqtaq, Nunavik. Data on weather conditions and window and door status were collected from September 2018 to August 2020. Behavior trends were identified using metrics such as the opening ratio, median duration of an opening, and number of openings. Correlations between opening/closing actions and the conditions of the outdoor environment were analyzed. Findings indicate that occupants interact more with common room windows and tend to leave bedroom windows open for longer periods. Time of the day, temperature, and relative humidity influence both opening and closing actions. Solar irradiance is also an important driver for open actions, while mean wind speed is significant in predicting closing actions. Data-driven models were developed using logistic regression. Comparison between predicted and real data demonstrated a good performance in estimating the opening ratio over the year and seasonal variations but a tendency to overestimate the number of openings and underestimate the duration of an opening.

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)0.000
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding and EnvironmentSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207