MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406645561 · doi:10.2172/2503488

Performance Results from DOE Cold Climate Heat Pump Challenge Field Validation

2025· report· en· W4406645561 on OpenAlexaff
Vrushali V. Mendon, Kevin Keene, Samuel Rosenberg, Julia Rotondo, Kathy Nwe, Jim Young, Walker Wind

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamic Systems and Engines
Canadian institutionsAthletic Edge Sports Medicine
FundersBonneville Power AdministrationBattellePacific Northwest National LaboratoryU.S. Department of CommerceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCold climateField (mathematics)Heat pumpEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyMechanical engineeringHeat exchangerPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space conditioning and water heating consume over 40% of the nation’s primary energy use and represent a significant component of many homeowners’ monthly energy bill. However, in cold climates, performance of heat pumps has traditionally suffered as the units have been unable to efficiently transfer heat from colder outdoor air temperatures to warm the interior space of homes. Optimizing heat pumps for cold climates (5 °F and below) requires coordinated effort to ensure heat pump technologies can be enjoyed by Americans living in these regions. The DOE Cold Climate Heat Pump (CCHP) Challenge sought to address this challenge by partnering with industry to develop, test, and validate the performance of new, highly efficient heat pumps in real homes. The Challenge, launched in 2021, brought together leading heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) manufacturers to develop prototype units optimized for performance at cold climates. This report summarizes results from the field validation that occurred 2022-2024.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Thermodynamic Systems and EnginesFrench-language works237,207