MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931706971 · doi:10.5683/sp2/974dbn

Efficiency in YYC: Visualizing The City of Calgary's Energy Consumption

2019· dataset· en· W6931706971 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnergy consumptionTrainConsumption (sociology)Carbon footprintElectricityEfficient energy useWind power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To combat the alarming global issue of climate change, the City of Calgary has been leading the way in implementing clean energy programs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the transit system's LRT trains are now fully powered by wind power, and a growing solar power system delivers electricity to its municipal buildings (Dodge and Thompson, 2016). In a dramatic initiative that is observable from space, Calgary has recently completed its conversion of 80,000 streetlights, which used to account for 20% of the city's total energy consumption in 2012, to 50% more efficient LED lamps (The City of Calgary, 2018c; Rieger, 2015). In addition to the environmental grounds for these innovations, the city will enjoy economic benefits not only through direct energy savings, but also on the incoming carbon taxes imposed by the governments of Alberta and Canada. The City of Calgary continues planning for its future with ambitious goals of reducing city-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 2005 levels before 2020 and by 80% before 2050 (The City of Calgary, 2018a). We aim to explore and visualize its actual consumption rate by taking advantage of an open dataset recently released by the city. In this table, the monthly energy consumption is reported for of each of Calgary's facilities and infrastructure components over the past nine years (The City of Calgary, 2018b). This is an informative and unique dataset as comprehensive data at this level of detail and frequency are not publically available from other major Canadian cities or even for residential and private sector properties.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→