Residents’ participation in energy performance certification for collective action on climate change: the case of EnerGuide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although governments have launched energy performance certification (EPC) programs to increase residential energy efficiency, residents' perception and acceptance of these programs have been little studied. This study contextualizes residents' intentions to participate in EPC programs in terms of their attributions to and attitudes toward climate change to find mediating factors and effects to help trigger collective action to reduce residential sector energy demand. Methods: This study employed a partial least squares structural equation modeling approach to empirically analyze a survey conducted on 400 residents of Edmonton, Canada, who participated in the Canadian energy efficiency rating and labeling program, EnerGuide. Results and Discussion: Using EnerGuide, a Canadian energy efficiency rating and labeling program, as an example, this study establishes a framework to explain that local residents' internal and external attributions to climate change elicit positive attitudes (need to take action), increasing their recognition of energy efficiency program benefits, which further promotes their EnerGuide program acceptance and participation intentions. This study also reveals the mediating effects between variables. Residents' attitudes toward climate change mediate the relationship between internal/external attributions and EnerGuide program acceptance, and they indirectly impact residents' program acceptance and participation intentions, with this effect moderated by energy efficiency program benefits. Residents' program acceptance also mediates the relationship between climate change attitudes/energy efficiency program benefits and the intention outcome. Implication: The study provides an example of the use of climate change discourse to motivate residents' energy efficiency program participation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".