MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166560559 · doi:10.1109/pes.2009.5275904

Creating a culture of conservation in ontario: Approaches, challenges and opportunities

2009· article· en· W2166560559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven J. Norrie, Peter E.D. Love

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsToronto and Region Conservation Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringIncentiveEnergy conservationBusinessWork (physics)ElectricityEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEngineeringEconomicsMarket economyFinanceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario has a long history of affordable and reliable electric power that has supported the development of an energy-intensive industrialized society. Electricity sector restructuring, with the breakup of Ontario Hydro in 1998, followed by the re-introduction of central power system planning in 2005, has given Ontario an opportunity to reshape its electricity supply mix with conservation as a priority. However, there are many challenges to transitioning from almost 100 years of supply-side focus to demand-side planning. These challenges include overcoming barriers to resource acquisition through incentives, building capability in the market for delivery and uptake of conservation, and transforming the market so that energy-efficiency becomes the norm. These barriers can be overcome by catalyzing changes in consumer attitudes and behaviours and using incentives and regulations to support lasting cultural change. Although Ontario has made progress in advancing a culture of conservation, much more work needs to be done.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207