Simulating the Impacts of Hybrid Campus and Autonomous Electric Vehicles as GHG Mitigation Strategies: A Case Study for a Mid-Size Canadian Post-Secondary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents how a post-secondary institution like University of British Columbia’s Okanagan (UBCO) campus can reduce its carbon footprint and be aligned with the government’s target through promoting virtual campus and autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs). Different virtual campus scenarios are developed: online classes only, working-from-home only, and a hybrid of both. In the case of AEVs, alternative penetration rates for levels 2 and 5 are considered. A total of 50 scenarios are tested using a sub-area transport simulation model for UBCO, which is extracted from the regional travel demand forecasting model. The results suggest that a 40% AEV penetration rate coupled with fully in-person classes reduces GHG by ~36% compared to the 2018-level, which will help UBCO to achieve their 2030 emission reduction target and be aligned with the provincial target. The 50% AEV and 10% hybrid virtual campus reduces emissions by ~48%, which is aligned with the 2040 provincial target. A fully virtual campus will help to reach the 2050 provincial target by reducing GHG by ~76%. The results further demonstrate that level 5 AEVs produce lesser emissions than level 2 at a lower AEV penetration rate for the fully in-person campus scenario. At higher penetration rates, level 5 performs better only if it is coupled with 10% of students, faculties and staffs attending virtual campus scenario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".