MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416519030 · doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2025.11.021

Designing energy-positive neighborhoods: A modular framework for integrated planning and policy guidance

2025· article· en· W4416519030 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Caroline Hachem-Vermette

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScience for Equity, Empowerment and Development DivisionCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsModular designMicrogridScalabilityPhotovoltaicsEnergy (signal processing)Integrated business planningEnergy planningModularity (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a modular and scalable framework for evaluating energy performance at the neighborhood scale, supporting the design of net-zero and energy-positive urban districts. Using archetype-based models of 11 representative Canadian neighborhood typologies, varying in density, land use, and form, the framework analyzes energy outcomes under multiple configurations, including microgrid coordination, renewable-powered district heating (geothermal and PV/T), landscape-integrated photovoltaics (LPV), and electric vehicle (EV) integration with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) functionality. Results show that integrating LPV over 20 % of public open space increases local generation reducing energy deficits by 20–30 % in high-density neighborhoods. Scenarios using PV/T based district heating (Scenario 4) achieved up to 90 % and 80 % reductions in net energy deficits in dense mixed-use neighborhoods (MU1 and MU2, respectively), compared to the baseline. V2G integration further reduced EV-related energy deficits by up to 25 % relative to uncontrolled charging scenarios. Additionally, strategic aggregation of complementary neighborhoods enabled the formation of energy-positive clusters, even when individual neighborhood units remained energy deficit. Although the analysis relies on simplified, correlation-based models and average annual inputs, the framework provides actionable insights during early planning phases, enabling rapid assessment of cross-sectoral design strategies for resilient, low-carbon urban development.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ReportsSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207