MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132315040

Evaluating suggested lengths used for cut-off planes using the effective length calculation procedure

2020· article· en· W7132315040 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
A. T. Hayes, M. Ghobadi, T. V. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Energy EfficiencyNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsBuilding envelopeThermalThermal transmittanceEnvelope (radar)Thermal bridgeHeat transferSlabHeat flowBridge (graph theory)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As building codes become more stringent in terms of thermal performance of building envelopes, and higher insulated wall assemblies are becoming more common, the heat flow due to major thermal bridges can contribute a significant portion of the total heat transfer through a building façade (Ghobadi, Moore, & Lacasse, 2019). Thermal bridge is a term used to describe a feature within a building façade which facilitates the transport of thermal energy through the envelope at a higher rate compared to the surrounding construction (ISO 10211, 2017). Thermal bridges can be found where there are changes in material properties or geometries that result in discrepancies in material thicknesses. Thermal bridges within buildings to name a few, can be found around windows, slab edges and in repeating studs within a wall. With building designers working to increase the overall energy efficiency of buildings, having tools to quantify the thermal performance of building façade during the design stage of a building is important. In quantifying the thermal performance of a building envelope during the design phase, project teams are able to identify major thermal bridges, and possibly change or adapt their design to mitigate the effects of the thermal bridge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization→French-language works237,207→