MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407636879 · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2025.104633

Differences in Canadian consumers’ awareness and preferences for zero-emissions vehicles from 2013 to 2023

2025· article· en· W4407636879 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zoe Long, Jonn Axsen, Viviane H. Gauer, Taco Niet

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilNatural Resources CanadaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacsSFU Community Trust Endowment FundSimon Fraser UniversityPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsZero emissionGreenhouse gasBusinessNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsEngineeringEconomicsWaste managementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goals to sell only zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) by the 2030s require substantial changes in consumers’ vehicle purchases over the next decade. Anticipating this transition, we investigate differences in consumer ZEV awareness and preferences over the last decade using cross-sectional samples of Canadian new-vehicle buyers from 2013 (n = 1,754), 2017 (n = 2,123), and 2023 (n = 2,555). Some measures of awareness significantly increased from 2013 to 2023, including familiarity and experience with ZEV technology, understanding of how to “fuel” battery electric vehicles, and awareness of public chargers. However, higher rates of confusion about hybrids and plug-in hybrids persist. Consumer preferences for ZEV drivetrains appear mostly unchanged over the study period, while valuations of home and fast charging have significantly increased in 2023. In short, consumers’ ZEV valuations are slow to change even with increased awareness and experience; preference change does not explain past ZEV sales increases, nor should it be relied upon to drive future sales increases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Part D Transport and EnvironmentSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207