MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571626281 · doi:10.1002/er.1860

Residential energy efficiency programs, retrofit choices and greenhouse gas emissions savings: a decade of energy efficiency improvements in Waterloo Region, Canada

2011· article· en· W1571626281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsIncentive programGreenhouse gasEfficient energy useIncentiveEnvironmental scienceBusinessAgricultural economicsEnvironmental economicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1999, the Residential Energy Efficiency Project, through Green Communities Canada, has been a delivery agent for EnerGuide for Houses and ecoENERGY programs in the Waterloo Region. This research analyzed 10,208 initial and 2,383 final evaluations made by the Residential Energy Efficiency Project between May 1999 and February 2009 to understand what energy efficiency improvements homeowners have made over time. Because of changes to federal and provincial programs, the data are analyzed under four main periods: the EnerGuide program with no financial incentives (1999 to 2003), the EnerGuide program with financial incentives based on performance (2003 to April 2006), no official program (April 2006 to April 2007), and the ecoENERGY program with financial incentives by measure (April 2007 to February 2009). Participating households were divided into cohorts associated with each of these periods. For each of these cohorts, the impact of retrofit changes was assessed as the amount of energy and greenhouse gas emissions saved. It was also assessed whether homeowners treated the ‘house as a system’, that is, whether they made multiple energy efficiency changes (e.g., increasing insulation in the ceiling, foundation or main walls, upgrading windows and doors, air sealing, improving heating, ventilation, air conditioning, or domestic water heating systems) or focused on a single change associated with large energy savings, such as changing their furnace. The findings show that recommended and achieved energy and greenhouse gas emissions savings differed across cohorts, and that achieved savings were generally less than recommended. The final cohort of homeowners who achieved major energy savings was twice as likely (25%) to take the single action of replacing the furnace as during earlier periods. Changes to furnaces were associated with higher levels of energy savings, but overall, 85% of the homes which achieved the highest levels of savings made multiple changes, thereby adopting the ‘house as a system’ approach to energy efficiency improvements. Finally, homeowners were less likely to make improvements to the building envelope, and these improvements were generally less extensive than the identified technical potential for improvement. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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