The landscape of heat pump adoption in Canada: a market segments approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat pumps are an important technology for reducing residential building emissions, however their adoption rate in North America is far below what is needed to meet emission reduction targets. This paper uses a representative web-based survey of Canadian homeowners (n = 3,804) to identify and describe characteristic and attitudinal trends of three market segments of Canadian homeowners: Pioneers (heat pump owners), Potential Early Mainstream buyers (homeowners currently willing to purchase a heat pump), and Late Mainstream buyers (homeowners currently unwilling to purchase a heat pump). We find that personal capability, contextual and attitudinal factors are significant determinants of market segments. For example, being younger, more educated and wealthier is positively associated with market segmentation in Canada. A novel finding is that voting and living in rural areas is strongly associated with willingness to install a heat pump. The Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and British Columbia are all more likely than Ontario and Alberta to adopt heat pumps while the Prairies are less likely. This is true even after controlling for personal capability, contextual and attitudinal variables. We find an important role for contextual variables in explaining the geographical distribution of heat pump market segments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".