MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415217414 · doi:10.1016/j.indenv.2025.100131

Resident-centric retrofits for social housing: A multi-solving approach

2025· article· en· W4415217414 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianne F. Touchie

Bibliographic record

VenueIndoor Environments · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)Public housingPsychological resilienceService providerThermal comfortExtreme weatherBuilding design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing around the world needs to be retrofit to achieve our decarbonization goals. Social (or public) housing is a particularly critical sector given that it often serves priority populations who have limited choice in how they are housed. At the same time, social housing in many jurisdictions suffers disproportionately from poor performance that impacts the resident experience including substandard indoor air quality (IAQ), thermal discomfort and broader control issues, often due to underinvestment at the time of construction and throughout the building service life. Further, these performance issues will be exacerbated as our changing climate brings more extreme weather events, including heat waves and wildfires. By focusing retrofit goals entirely on decarbonization, the performance issues impacting residents often remain unaddressed, therefore a framework for considering post-retrofit building performance more holistically is needed. The concept of “multi-solving” retrofits, where multiple performance issues are addressed through a single project, presents a framework through which we can expand our consideration of retrofits beyond energy and carbon. These new directions include reducing life cycle carbon burdens and improving resilience to extreme events; housing affordability; health, comfort and control; and livability and community are described. By applying this framework, retrofit investments can yield benefits for residents that extend beyond initial environmental goals. Following an introduction to the framework and examples of how it can be applied, future directions for the research community, policy makers and industry are suggested to promote widespread adoption of resident-centric retrofits (where resident needs are prioritized) that address the multitude of challenges facing social housing globally. These directions include the need for better data collection on holistic retrofit performance, co-benefit valuation and decision support tools for the building industry. • Many social housing developments face multi-dimensional challenges. • Retrofit investment should achieve more than just energy and carbon targets. • Retrofits can be used to meet environmental, social and economic goals. • Multi-solving retrofits can improve affordability, resilience, comfort & community. • Need policy changes, co-benefit quantification and decision support tools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndoor EnvironmentsSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207