MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362576185 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15385

Quantitative Assessment of Teleworking on Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

2022· dissertation· en· W4362576185 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sharane S.T. Simon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnergy consumptionPurchasingConsumption (sociology)BusinessEnvironmental economicsElectricityInformation and Communications TechnologyEngineeringMarketingEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teleworking offers various socioeconomic benefits to society, but its environmental impact remains poorly understood.Using eleven participants from Ottawa, Canada, a year-long pilot study was designed and implemented to quantify energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in three domains: home office, transportation, and information and communications technology (ICT).The results show that transportation and home heating and cooling account for >94% of the energy associated with teleworking.Home office equipment, lighting, and ICT account for the remaining 6%, with an insignificant impact on GHG emissions (<2%) due to the low-carbon electricity grid.The results indicate teleworking will likely result in a net reduction in energy use and GHG emissions compared to conventional working arrangements due to reduced daily commute, especially when employees travel long distances to their company offices via personal vehicles.However, teleworking's net impact is highly variable, dependent on personal choices, routines, purchasing decisions, and household structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→