CANADA’S CBIP VERSUS THE UNITED STATES ’ LEED™: BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE PATH REQUIREMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LEED-Canada is launching a green building rating system based on the U.S. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) rating system. As part of the system, it assessed the energy performance difference between Canada’s Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) and the ASHRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 energy code (ASHRAE) to develop an equivalent localized rating system. A comprehensive review of the two energy standards and the development of dozens of DOE2 models were conducted to evaluate the differences. The models represented compliant reference cases for both respective standards for prototype building types and HVAC configurations across Canada. A comparison of the overall aggregate difference showed that ASHRAE is nearly 11 % more stringent than the MNECB. This paper provides an overview of the approach followed to determine the relative differences between the codes, as well as summary results from the analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".