MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392907318 · doi:10.32920/25417126.v1

Analyzing the Residential Water Consumption Patterns of the City of Toronto and the Relationship With Demographic Variables

2024· preprint· en· W4392907318 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mosammat Sultana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaWater usePer capita incomeAgricultural economicsWater consumptionHousehold incomeIncome elasticity of demandGeographyConsumption (sociology)Demographic economicsEconomicsSocioeconomicsLabour economicsEnvironmental scienceDemographyWater resource managementEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the thesis was to understand residential water usage in Toronto from 2001 to 2016 and to explore demographic and economic variables that might have affected use. Data were aggregated at the ward level and analyzed by multiple regression. The model explains that wards with high average household income use more water per capita. Water exhibited price elasticity, per capita water use decreased as price increased, but more so in low income wards than high income wards. Average household size had a positive effect on per capita water use; larger households use more water, not only in total, but per capita. Annual rainfall had a negative effect on per capita water use, perhaps due to decreased water demand for lawns and gardens. Interestingly, the percent immigrant had a negative effect on water use which suggests a stronger ethos of water conservation among newer Canadians.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207