Simulating the impact and policy implications of telework on home energy use and emissions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistics indicate that after the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals have opted to work remotely for at least a few days each week. This study investigates the impact of teleworking on energy consumption and carbon emissions in Canadian homes. Four residential building models, aligned with the 2020 requirements of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC), were investigated across six Canadian climate zones. The findings of this study reveal that the increase in energy consumption and CO2 emissions due to teleworking varies according to the type of building and the number of thermal zones. For the selected single-zone house models, the maximum increase in energy consumption and CO2 emissions were 11% and 10%, respectively occurring in a row house two-story building. For the three-zone house models, the increase was 5%. Also, results indicated that full-time teleworking in a four-storey multi-family building with 12.5%, 50% and 100% teleworking ratios increased the total energy of the building by 1%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. The second phase of this study investigated possible enhancements to building energy codes, focusing on the National Building Code of Canada, to address increasing daytime occupancy resulting from teleworkers, retirees, and other occupants.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".