MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416705964 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2025.1780

A holistic framework for optimizing building decision metrics via advanced parametric modeling: The ECO‑Matrix Protocol

2025· article· W4416705964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHVACParametric statisticsScheduleVariable (mathematics)Protocol (science)WorkflowSuiteASHRAE 90.1Benchmark (surveying)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid tightening of building-energy codes and carbon-mitigation targets now obliges design teams to compare dozens of envelope, system and control permutations while simultaneously controlling capital cost. Yet conventional parametric studies seldom test more than a handful of scenarios because every additional simulation imposes time penalties, and most optimisation tools still chase a single metric—typically annual energy use.This paper introduces the ECO-Matrix Protocol, a cloud-hosted workflow that marries targeted Latin-hypercube sampling, batch simulation, surrogate-model interpolation and an interactive, many-objective dashboard. The protocol ranks thousands of design options against a suite of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that matter to both owners and regulators: capital-cost delta, operating savings, greenhouse-gas (GHG) abatement, simple payback and return on investment (ROI).A K-4 school in Ontario, Canada, provides the validating case study. Ten recurrent variable families covering envelope, daylighting and HVAC were each discretised into three levels, yielding 51,840 theoretical combinations. Only 72 high-value IESVE simulation setup, powered with variable iteration through parametric batch were needed to train the interpolation engine, expanding the result set to 5,184 envelope–lighting variants; 20 explicit HVAC archetypes completed the matrix. The browser-based dashboard instantly filtered solutions exceeding the National Energy Code of Canada baseline and visualised trade-offs among energy, cost and carbon.Statistical cross-validation against 20 random full simulations confirmed interpolation errors below one percent for energy-use intensity predictions.By showing that holistic, many-objective optimisation fits within a typical schematic-design window, the ECO-Matrix Protocol offers a transferable roadmap for low-carbon design in diverse climates. Future work will automate HVAC surrogate training and further integrate Life Cycle Costing (LCA) and embodied-carbon analysis.Research Gap and Objectives:Past studies by Attia et al. (2012) and Ascione et al. (2017) highlight the limited uptake of multi-objective optimization in practice. Few approaches move beyond single‑metric energy savings, and sampling strategies are often ad‑hoc, leaving decision‑makers unsure about representativeness. This paper addresses three questions:1. How can a design team explore tens of thousands of envelope‑system combinations with <100 simulations?2. How can multiple KPIs—including capital cost—be brought into one visual space?3. Does such a workflow improve design decisions in a live project?

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.315 · 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