MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review and Characterization of Energy Harvesting Resources in Buildings with Case Study of a Commercial Building in Cold Climate – Toronto, Canada

2025· preprint· en· W4408350731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeremy Lytle, Zenon Radewych, Kristiina Mai, Alan S. Fung

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Energy Harvesting Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCold climateArchitectural engineeringCharacterization (materials science)Climate changeEnergy (signal processing)Environmental scienceCivil engineeringEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyGeologyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work provides a framework for the comprehensive assessment of energy harvesting resources in buildings, encompassing environmental, anthropogenic and recyclable sources. A review of resources and state-of-the-art energy harvesting technologies is presented including an outlook on the future theoretical limitations of their performance. The assessment framework is applied to a case-study commercial building located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Available resources are categorized into 3 orders of magnitude with respect to achievable power generation, with solar and wind in the first tier, elevator potential and fitness centres in the second tier, and sources including vibrations, occupant traffic and thermoelectric conversion in the third. Situated in a mid-rise context, the total annual resource magnitude is found to be 8 times greater than the building demand. However, only an overall 10% of the available resource is converted with the harvesting applications and efficiencies considered, resulting in a net energy deficit. It is shown that with maximum theoretical efficiencies, the conversion rate can reach 30% resulting in 151% surplus electrical generation for the building in question.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicInnovative Energy Harvesting TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207