MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924695453 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.7674

The Queen’s Residence Energy Challenge

2017· article· en· W2924695453 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maryam Adrangi

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeResidenceSustainabilityCompetition (biology)Renewable energyEnergy (signal processing)Queen (butterfly)BusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyEcologyDemographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Queen’s Residence Energy Challenge (QREC) is an energy conservation initiative taking place in the residence halls at Queen’s University coordinated by the AMS Sustainability Office and the Sustainability Coordinator for Student Affairs . It is a two-part competition. Part one of the competition is an interresidence competition in which each residence hall will be competing to reduce their energy expenditures. Energy use will be compared to the corresponding time in the previous year, and the residence that reduces their energy use by the highest percentage will win the competition. This part of the project is being organized by members of the AMS Sustainability Office and the Sustainability Coordinator (Office of Student Affairs), and Residence Life staff and floor dons are helping execute it. The second part of the competition is an inter-university pledge drive, in which residents will be encouraged to sign a pledge stating that they will be participating in the QREC. Queen’s will be competing against the Universities of Waterloo and Guelph, and the school that has the highest percentage of residents participating will win a set of solar panels as a symbol of energy conservation and renewable energy. This part of the project is being coordinated by the Sierra Youth Coalition who has obtained funding from the Ontario Power Authority. The goals of the QREC are to reduce overall energy use in the residences, help students living in residence learn about their own energy consumption and ways to reduce it, and create a culture of sustainability at Queen’s. In this presentation I will go through the overall timeline of executing and planning the project, provide examples of ways to reduce energy consumption in residence, and provide results of both parts of the competition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207