MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2343304613 · doi:10.14288/1.0108574

Strategies for reducing energy & carbon intensity of a Vancouver townhouse complex

2014· article· en· W2343304613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mike Hoy

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon fibersEnergy (signal processing)Intensity (physics)GeographyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A townhouse building in Vancouver, Canada was studied to see what energy and emissions savings were possible through implementation of practical energy improvement measures. It was found that a 60 – 65% reduction in energy consumption was possible through measures that have no impact on household comfort or function. These measures yield a levelized savings of roughly $650 per year and a simple payback of five years. These measures have the potential to make these townhouses 5 times more efficient than the average Canadian residential building and 4 times more efficient than a typical British Columbia town-home. The suggested measures will introduce a mix of improved efficiency, behaviour change and new energy supply. This comprehensive approach is required to achieve maximum potential savings. All suggested improvement measures are recommended to be implemented at the unit level as opposed to the building level. This is because expectations vary significantly amongst the home owners, and energy use in this building is already separated by unit. Energy and emissions savings may be eroded by the behaviour of the residents by up to 26%. Clear understanding of the available savings and disciplined behaviour will be key to maximizing the potential of the suggested measures. These results are most relevant to other town-homes in British Columbia, particularly in the Metro Vancouver area and on Vancouver Island. In conjunction with University of British Columbia. Clean Energy Research Center. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization→French-language works237,207→