MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416705941 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2025.1729

Workflow to accurately model vegetation canopy effects in building energy simulation

2025· article· W4416705941 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chittoor Mohammed Noushad Ahamed, K. K. Gill, K. S. Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorkflowPhotogrammetryVegetation (pathology)ShadingMicroclimatePolygon meshEnergy (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work develops an efficient and accurate workflow for integrating vegetation canopy effects into building energy simulations through unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based video capture and automated reconstruction techniques. Unlike traditional methods that rely on static vegetation representations, the present approach utilizes a dual-perspective UAV video strategy to simultaneously capture the building exterior and its surrounding vegetation from an interior-facing viewpoint. This method enables precise shading analysis while significantly reducing computational costs compared to full-scale microclimate simulations. The high-resolution UAV data is processed using advanced photogrammetry and 2D Gaussian Splatting to reconstruct a detailed 3D building model with optimized vegetation meshes that accurately preserve canopy geometry. The 2D Gaussians refine the meshes' representation by optimizing mapping calculations. These meshes are then incorporated as shading elements within energy simulation platforms such as Grasshopper/EnergyPlus, thereby enhancing simulation accuracy over conventional coarse approximations. By dynamically integrating real-world vegetation geometry, the present workflow yields context-aware and seasonally adaptable results, bridging the gap between high-fidelity 3D reconstruction and practical energy analysis. This scalable and automated approach offers a promising avenue for urban energy modeling and the optimization of passive solar design in built environments.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207