MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing tools for municipalities to meet carbon targets

2023· article· en· W4389223819 on OpenAlexaff
Khosro Lari, Kevin Cant, Ralph Evins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Greenhouse gasDashboardGovernment (linguistics)Environmental economicsClimate changeClimate change mitigationBusinessCarbon stockEnergy consumptionEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carbon emissions must be cut in half by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, and cities and municipalities are at the forefront of the fight against climate change. In 2017, the energy use of buildings directly accounted for 51% of emissions in the City of Victoria and offered the greatest opportunity for the municipal government to act. Unfortunately, at this point, many cities and municipalities lack the tools and locally relevant data to make effective policy decisions. This research aims to develop a practical framework for analyzing and comparing the carbon impact of policies enacted by municipal governments, and is specifically focused on the energy consumption, and operating and embodied carbon related to single-family dwellings (SFDs) in the City of Victoria, which contains a heterogeneous building stock with construction dates ranging between 1860 to present day. The underlying model has been developed based on statistical modeling and agent-based behavioral responses to different policy actions. The agent-based modelling approach models stock development in terms of new construction, retrofit, and replacement by simulating individual decisions at the building level. The results can be used to identify optimal efforts to minimizing barriers or bottlenecks in achieving low-carbon ambitions while understanding or addressing related aspects such as housing affordability. Municipalities can use the dashboard to identify and prioritize climate solutions that meet their stringent obligations.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207