Performance Evaluation of LEED-certified Affordable Homes: Case Study of LEED-certified Habitat for Humanity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the rapid growth in the number of LEED-certified homes, little data is currently available about the actual effects of LEED-certified affordable homes. The purpose of present study is to conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation for LEED-certified Habitat for Humanity residences in terms of (1) energy efficiency, (2) indoor environmental quality, (3) health impact, (4) residential satisfaction, (5) quality of life, and (6) environmental attitudes and behaviors. A case study was conducted with 15 households living in LEED-certified Habitat for Humanity homes in Kent County, Michigan using observation, in-depth interviews, and surveys. Findings revealed overall housing satisfaction was very high although some residents indicated lower satisfaction with their neighborhood. Most of case study homes had 30-50% lower electricity and natural gas bills. Most participants were satisfied with indoor environmental quality (IEQ) including thermal comfort, indoor air quality, amount daylight, quality of artificial lighting, and acoustical condition. Most participants agreed that since moving into their current homes they have experienced improved family relationships, better health conditions, more positive attitudes, and better performance of their children. The major findings of this case study support the positive effects of LEED-certified low-income homes on residents’ behavioral, social, and psychological aspects of well-being.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".