MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410586194 · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2025.103481

Predicting energy consumption of building clusters at the design stage using machine learning models

2025· article· en· W4410586194 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulhameed Babatunde Owolabi, Abdullahi Yahaya, Mohammad Amir, Abdulfatai Olatunji Yakub, Miroslava Kavgic

Bibliographic record

VenueAin Shams Engineering Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Trade, Industry and Energy
KeywordsEnergy consumptionStage (stratigraphy)Consumption (sociology)Energy (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsGeologyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental impact of high energy consumption in buildings during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the adopting of data-driven approaches for enhanced decision-making and energy savings. However, forecasting energy use during the early design phase remains limited. This study investigates how building clusters affect model performance at the design stage using five machine-learning techniques with a dataset of 10,264 buildings. Model performances were evaluated using their accuracy, RMSE, MAE, MSE, and R 2 metrics. Results showed that achieved the best accuracy score of 98%, followed by and with accuracy scores of 95% and 92%, respectively. The study proposes a general framework to predict average annual energy use across different building types at the early design stage, supporting informed and sustainable architectural decisions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAin Shams Engineering JournalSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207