MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416075723 · doi:10.31224/5780

Energy Use Variation Among Tenants Occupying the Same Dwelling: A Study of 600+ Cases in Montreal and Quebec

2025· preprint· W4416075723 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoit Delcroix, Cédric Daval, Alexis-Marie de Rochon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityOutlierEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)Sample (material)Heating degree dayVariation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective - This study investigates the variability in electricity consumption among tenants residing in the same dwelling in Montreal and Quebec City. The primary goals are to assess the extent to which occupant behavior and lifestyle influence electricity usage—particularly for heating—and to quantify the magnitude of variation in energy use between tenants.Methodology - The analysis proceeded in three phases: data extraction and preparation, data processing and calculation of key indicators, and results analysis. Four data sources were utilized:- A survey of residential electricity use- A registry of tenants with move-in and move-out dates- Monthly electricity consumption records- Historical weather dataKey indicators calculated for each dwelling-tenant pair included monthly baseload, weather-adjusted heating energy use, and weather-adjusted total energy use. Outlier data were removed, resulting in a final sample of 652 dwellings. For each dwelling, statistical measures—mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation—were computed to evaluate the degree of energy use variation among tenants.Results - The findings reveal substantial variability in energy consumption among tenants occupying the same dwelling. Average variations for total energy use, baseload, and heating were 22%, 33%, and 34%, respectively, with distributions that are both skewed and dispersed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization→French-language works237,207→