Jurisdiction Options for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Jurisdiction Options Discussion Paper is one of the research reports providing technical information for the Green Building Leaders Project. The purpose of the Project is to generate technical and legal information to help participating local governments (both municipalities and regional districts) understand how existing local government jurisdiction can be used to implement high energy performance in buildings, and to engage with the provincial government on possibilities to enable local governments to take leadership in this area. The ultimate goal is to increase energy efficiency in buildings, reduce the amount of energy the building uses, and reduce GHG production.The Green Building Leaders Project focuses on regulations for three promising green building policy approaches, and the law reform opportunities for their implementation. These priority green building policy approaches are:1. Energy labelling and energy efficiency standards for existing buildings;2. Renewable energy requirements for new buildings; and3. Higher energy performance standards for new buildings.The focus of this Discussion Paper is to describe existing local government jurisdiction for regulating buildings and renewable energy, and to propose law reform options for implementing the priority green building policy approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".