Who changes consumption following residential energy evaluations? local programs need all income groups to achieve kyoto targets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The government of Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 17 December 2002, but over 100 Canadian municipalities had joined the International Council for Local Environmental Intitatives' (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign up to a decade earlier. A low-cost home energy rating system (HERS) evaluation and individualized energy plan was provided to 420 households in Kitchener, Ontario, from September 2000 to August 2001. To assess the impact of the energy efficiency program, natural gas consumption in the year prior to the evaluation was compared with that in the year following. Overall, a 5% reduction was achieved, but individual responses varied widely. Situational and psychological factors were evaluated for three groups of households: the conservers, the consumers and the steady middle group. Conservers (30% of households) had higher initial energy consumption levels and achieved two-thirds of the potential savings identified by the energy evaluation. Consumers (12% of households) had higher ownership rates of high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters and demonstrated the rebound effect of increased demand for energy services following the evaluation. Low-income groups were the most likely to behave as conservers (42%) while high-income groups were the least likely to be conservers (13%) and the most likely to be consumers. Local programs need to be inclusive of all income groups to increase participation and implementation rates by systematically reducing barriers (financial, knowledge, trust) or increasing incentives (financial, regulatory or social) if the desired goal (e.g. Kyoto target) is to be achieved.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 it