Willingness to pay and preferences for healthy home attributes in Canada
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
This study examined aspects of the healthful living concept in the Canadian housing market. This project focused on identifying what Canadian householders value and desire in the indoor environment of their homes, particularly with respect to the indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics. A nationwide survey consisting of 3,592 Canadian households was conducted, revolving around issues of consumer demand for healthier homes. The major topics assessed were: 1) willingness to pay for better indoor environmental quality; and 2) householder choices and preferences for healthful living attributes. Modeling using logistic regression was conducted to determine whether the likelihood of paying more for better indoor environmental quality features could be predicted. Products and materials promoting energy efficiency, natural light, better insulation, and nonallergic qualities were preferred in a choice/preference question of nine attributes regarding healthier homes. There seem to be market opportunities for the healthy home concept to establish itself in the Canadian housing sector, which may serve to benefit the Canadian wood industry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it