MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409000362 · doi:10.3390/en18071740

Combining Energy Performance and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in Buildings: A Systematic Review on Common IEQ Guidelines and Energy Codes in North America

2025· review· en· W4409000362 on OpenAlexaff
I. K. Perera, Kasun Hewage, Anber Rana, Rehan Sadiq

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental qualityArchitectural engineeringEnergy performanceEnergy (signal processing)Indoor air qualityQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceEnvironmental economicsEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringEconomicsMathematicsEcologyStatisticsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in buildings is vital for health, work efficiency, productivity, and the overall sustainability of buildings. IEQ is governed by four parameters: indoor air quality and thermal, acoustic, and visual comfort. The recent pandemic has compelled people to think beyond energy efficiency and refocus on the health, well-being, and productivity of building occupants. Despite numerous IEQ guidelines and standards, there remains a paucity of systematic research that critically examines the relationship between IEQ and building energy efficiency. This systematic review explores the existing equilibrium and identifies gaps between IEQ standards and building energy codes. Firstly, this review examined the status of the IEQ standards and identified that most of the North American IEQ guidelines cannot achieve energy efficiency targets. Secondly, existing building energy codes were reviewed to determine how well these codes fare with IEQ requirements. It was revealed that the expensive energy certification documents are more focused on IEQ than traditional energy codes. The identified factors indicate that most building energy codes can meet only indoor air quality thresholds (a subset of IEQ), while other parameters are inadequately addressed. This review revealed 19 relationships between IEQs and energy efficiency. Building energy code/IEQ guidelines developers could consider the identified 19 relationships to develop a combined set of guidelines/standards for future building stock. An integration model between IEQ and energy efficiency is proposed as a future research direction to contribute to the better design and construction of modern buildings. The findings will facilitate the construction of healthy and sustainable buildings, and they aim to generate new residential communities that achieve an optimal health–energy–carbon nexus.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207