Research viewpoints by IRC: a system for improving building operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors start with the premise that buildings do not perform as well in practice as anticipated at the design stage. Among the reasons for this are· improper equipment selection and installation,· lack of rigorous commissioning and proper maintenance, and· poor feedback on operational performance, including energy performance.And few tools are available to the on-site engineer to address these problems, the source of excess energy use and higher operations and maintenance costs. A related problem is that existing Energy Management and Control Systems (EMCSs) used to monitor building performance are becoming more and more complex and therefore difficult for some operators to understand. Besides, EMCSs have not only limited data collection, archival and visualization capabilities but also few techniques to extract relevant information from data. For that matter, most EMCSs do not include energy monitoring in their scope at all; thus, operators have neither feedback on the performance of key energy-consuming equipment nor diagnostic tools. That leaves them typically only with monthly utility bills to track how much energy is used. Obviously some automated diagnostics capability is needed to inform an operator when a problem or deviation from normal operation has occurred.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.024 |
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".