Efficacy of government incentivized residential building retrofits in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficacy of government-incentivized residential building retrofit programs across ten diverse Canadian cities from economic and environmental perspectives. We modeled retrofit strategies using the Vertical City Weather Generator (VCWG v1.4.9) software. We assessed their financial and environmental viability under various jurisdictions with different economic incentive programs and future energy price inflation rates for electricity and fossil fuels. Our findings reveal city-specific variability in retrofit effectiveness, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches. Increasing electricity rates enhances Photovoltaic (PV) systems benefits but diminishes Heat Pump (HP) financial returns. Higher energy costs make retrofits more financially viable and shorten investment payback periods. While most strategies reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, PV systems are particularly environmentally effective when the electricity grid GHG emissions intensities are high. Building Envelop (BE) upgrades benefit all cities with a short payback period. Despite the economic incentives, HP may offer limited financial or environmental benefits. This study underscores the nuanced considerations necessary for effective retrofit policy formulation adapted to local contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".