MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403945001 · doi:10.3390/buildings14113486

Advances in Cold-Climate-Responsive Building Envelope Design: A Comprehensive Review

2024· review· en· W4403945001 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Al-Shatnawi, Caroline Hachem-Vermette, Michael Lacasse, Bahador Ziaeemehr

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding envelopeEnvelope (radar)Architectural engineeringCold climateEngineeringSystems engineeringAerospace engineeringComputer scienceMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme low temperatures, heavy snowfall, ice accumulation, limited daylight, and increased energy consumption in cold climates present significant challenges but also offer opportunities for improving building efficiency. Advanced materials and technologies in climate-responsive envelopes can enhance sustainability, reduce carbon footprints and operational costs, and improve thermal comfort under these environmental conditions. This literature review combines theoretical aspects of building performance in cold climates with a summary of current and critical applications in building envelope design, identifying research gaps and proposing future research directions. It has been shown that various BIPV systems require further climate-based studies to optimize solar energy yield. For example, integrating PV layers and PCM within DSFs can reduce cooling loads, but more research is needed on PCM transition temperatures and ventilation strategies in cold climates. A notable research gap exists in building-integrated vegetative systems, particularly regarding soil thickness, irrigation, hygrothermal performance, and snow accumulation. Despite excellent winter performance in buildings incorporating CLT components, they face increased cooling energy consumption and potential overheating in summer. Additionally, the high initial moisture content in CLT raises the risk of mold growth, especially when covered with vapor-tight layers. The design examples in this paper emphasize the need for further investigation to achieve sustainable, low-carbon, energy-efficient envelope designs for cold climates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207