Collaborative Rural Community Energy Planning: The Health and EconomicBenefitsof Walking The Talk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia Climate Action Charter provides Local Governments with the impetus and Carbon Tax funding to create collaborations, develop opportunities to increase energy efficiency, provide community financial savings and develop infrastructure to encourage healthy lifestyles. In the Kootenays, communities are taking action to improve their energy resilience, and have found the economic and health implications of plan implementation to be astounding. Community Energy Plans provide direction to develop active transportation plans, improve walking infrastructure and promote a healthy lifestyle. All while reducing community greenhouse gas emissions. The Plans have become the framework to apply for “Plan H” funding for sidewalk infrastructure, Active Transportation plans, walking school bus programs, etc., within the BC Interior Health region. Community Energy Plans engage the community, support healthy transportation choices and develop a collaborative inclusive community resilience. What began as a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, through community involvement, partnerships, innovation and resolution, develops into an age-friendly and connected rural community. Communities are working to meet their GHG reduction targets while our population becomes more active. An active person reduces their chance of chronic disease (i.e., diabetes and cardiovascular disease). Community planning and design can influence the health of the population. One in three British Columbians are living with chronic disease. 50% of adults and 91% of children/youth do not have recommended levels of physical activity. Partnerships with the province and utilities supported the development of Community Energy Plans unique to each place and an active and engaged community results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".