Detecting Total Building Occupancy for More Efficient Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensors were installed in a three-storey building in eastern Ontario comprising laboratories and 81 individual work spaces. Contact closure sensors were placed on exterior doors, internal doors, and on the refrigerator door in the main break room, PIR motion sensors were placed in the main corridor on each floor, and a carbon-dioxide sensor was positioned in a circulation area. In addition, we collected data on the number of people who had logged in to the network on each day, network activity (bit transfer rates), and electrical energy use (total building, and chilling plant only). Data were recorded over the Summer, 2009. The data streams were clearly responsive to building occupancy at the whole building level (e.g. evenings, weekends, public holidays) and locally (e.g. doors near heavily-occupied meeting rooms). Further, we developed an ARIMAX model to forecast the power demand of the building in which an explicit measure of building occupancy level was a significant independent variable and increased the accuracy of the model. The results are promising, and suggest that further work on a larger and more typical office building would be beneficial. If building operators have a tool that can accurately forecast the energy use of their building several hours ahead they can better respond to utility price signals, and play a fuller role in the coming Smart Grid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".