Split Incentives and Energy Efficiency in Canadian Multi-Family Dwellings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the energy-related behaviour of occupants and owners of multi-family dwellings in Canada, some of whom do not pay directly for electricity or heat, but instead have these costs included in their rent or condo fees. Using data from the 2003 Survey of Household Energy Use, we look at the extent to which split incentives that result from bill-paying arrangements effect a variety of activities including the setting of temperatures at various times of the day and the use of eco-friendly options in basic household tasks. Findings suggest that these split incentives do indeed impact some aspects of occupant behaviour, with households who do not pay directly for their heat opting for increased thermal comfort and being less sensitive to whether or not somebody is at home and the severity of the climate when deciding on temperature settings. Regardless of who pays for utilities, Canadian households who live in multi-family dwellings are generally unresponsive to fuel prices. Our empirical results suggest that the possibility of environmental benefits from policies aimed at improving energy-efficiency in this sector, especially if targeted at reducing the impacts of the behaviour of those who do not pay directly for energy use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".