MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415146606 · doi:10.3390/buildings15203666

Low-Carbon Climate-Resilient Retrofit Pilot: Construction Report

2025· article· en· W4415146606 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hamish Pope, Mark Carver

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingBuilding envelopeExpansion jointEngineering design processThermal insulationResilience (materials science)Design processEfficient energy use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep retrofits are one of the few pathways to decarbonize the existing building stock while simultaneously improving climate resilience. These retrofits improve insulation, airtightness, and mechanical equipment efficiency. NRCan’s Prefabricated Exterior Energy Retrofit (PEER) project developed prefabricated building envelope retrofit solutions to enable net-zero performance. The PEER process was demonstrated on two different pilot projects completed between 2017 and 2023. In 2024, in partnership with industry partners, NRCan developed new low-carbon retrofit panel designs and completed a pilot project to evaluate their performance and better understand resiliency and occupant comfort post-retrofit. The Low-Carbon Climate-Resilient (LCCR) Living Lab pilot retrofit was completed in 2024 in Ottawa, Canada, using low-carbon PEER panels. This paper outlines the design and construction for the pilot, including panel designs, the retrofitting process, and post-retrofit building and envelope commissioning. The retrofitting process included the design and installation of new prefabricated exterior retrofitted panels for the walls and the roof. These panels were insulated with cellulose, wood fibre, hemp, and chopped straw. During construction, blower door testing and infrared imaging were conducted to identify air leakage paths and thermal bridges in the enclosure. The retrofit envelope thermal resistance is RSI 7.0 walls, RSI 10.5 roof, and an RSI 3.5 floor with 0.80 W/m2·K U-factor high-gain windows. The measured normalized leakage area @10Pa was 0.074 cm2/m2. The net carbon stored during retrofitting was over 1480 kg CO2. Monitoring equipment was placed within the LCCR to enable the validation of hygrothermal models for heat, air, and moisture transport, and energy, comfort, and climate resilience models.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207