MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409290321 · doi:10.3390/en18081913

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

2025· review· en· W4409290321 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeremy Lytle, Zenon Radewych, Kristiina Valter, Alan S. Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Energy Harvesting Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringCold climateCharacterization (materials science)Climate changeEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEnvironmental planningEngineeringGeographyMeteorologyGeologyMaterials science

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. The available resources are categorized into three 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 eight 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)0.000
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicInnovative Energy Harvesting TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207