MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A preliminary scenario analysis of the impacts of teleworking on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

2021· article· en· W4200554788 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farzam Kharvari, Sara Azimi, William O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasElectricityEnergy consumptionEnvironmental economicsConsumption (sociology)Baseline (sea)Scenario analysisInformation and Communications TechnologyEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper uses scenario analysis to investigate the broader impact of teleworking in four scenarios including the COVID-19 pandemic, worst-, moderate-, and best-case scenarios on building-level energy use, energy consumption in transportation, and information and communication technology (ICT) usage by using the databases of the Government of Canada. The COVID-19 scenario relies on the available data for the pandemic period. The worst-case scenario is when telework has an adverse effect on energy use while the moderate-and best-case scenarios are when the minimum and maximum savings are achieved by telework. The data includes commuting distances, electricity and natural gas consumption for offices and residential buildings, and ICT usage. Then, the associated GHG emissions are calculated for transportation, residential and office buildings, and ICT and the analysis are carried out by applying a potential fraction of saving to the associated GHG emissions of each domain and scenario. This paper demonstrates the potential energy savings of teleworking significantly depends on teleworker behavior to a degree that in the worst-case scenario no potential saving is observed while the savings are significant in the best-case scenario. Therefore, the impact of telework is highly uncertain and complicated and current statistics are insufficient for accurate estimates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207