Measuring the use of energy poverty coping strategies and the heat‐or‐eat trade‐off in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Bridgewater, a small town in Nova Scotia, around 40% of households face energy poverty. Little research has examined energy poverty in Canada and how it affects the well‐being of households. The aim of this study was to identify the ways households cope with energy poverty across socio‐economic characteristics, paying particular attention to the heat‐or‐eat trade‐off. Data were collected using a community‐based survey on housing, energy use and costs, coping strategies, socio‐economic characteristics, and well‐being. Overall, 516 residents of Bridgewater completed the survey. Cross‐tabulations and logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. Results indicate that the use of coping strategies was higher among women compared to men, young adults compared to other age groups, in households with children, and in lower‐income households. Over one‐third of respondents reported using the heat‐or‐eat trade‐off. Women, young adults, those in dwellings in need of repairs, and those with lower education levels and lower household incomes were more likely to use the heat‐or‐eat trade‐off. Our findings reveal that households vulnerable to energy poverty are forced to use a range of coping strategies, including strategies beyond those captured by the heat‐or‐eat trade‐off. Better understanding the experience of households facing energy poverty can inform the creation of effective support programs .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".