Benchmarking Twin Houses and Assessment of the Energy Performance of Two Gas Combo Heating Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A research project was undertaken at the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology to benchmark the energy performance of twin houses and assess the relative energy performance of two different natural gas combo systems. Commissioning and benchmarking of the twin house facility was performed in preparation for these first experiments with the combo systems. One gas combo heating system consisted of a conventional water heater that provided domestic hot water directly and space heating through a heating coil in an air handler that was connected to the house's forced air distribution system. The second gas combo was connected in the same way, but featured condensing gas technology. Both units were installed in parallel to the reference equipment in the same house -- a conventional hot water heater and a condensing gas furnace. The reference configuration was also run to develop and verify the benchmark against which the combo's would be compared. Each combo was assessed over 6 weeks of monitoring for a total of 12 weeks. Half way through the monitoring period for each combo, an adjustment was made to the air handler velocities, and an additional set of performance characteristics was developed for each combo, based on the new air flow velocities. The combo system that was based on conventional water heating technology did not perform as well as the benchmark configuration in the colder portions of the heating season, but equaled the performance of the benchmark in the shoulder seasons. The gas combo that is based on condensing technology showed energy savings over a greater proportion of the heating season than the conventional efficiency gas combo unit. With higher air handler flow rates, the condensing gas combo showed better or equal performance relative to the reference ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".