Chief Corporate Officer Status Report on the Energy Plan for Toronto- Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to seek City Council's approval of conservation and demand management programs and projects that are being considered for implementation to contribute to the reduction of electricity demand by 2010 and to seek City Council's approval of a process to further develop an Energy Plan for Toronto, consisting of all major fuel types, renewable energy and additional short, medium and long term goals. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: In order to initiate conservation and demand management programs and projects that are being considered for implementation to contribution to the 300 Megawatt Toronto target, an outside legal counsel on these arrangements will be necessary. Funding in the amount of $80,000 is available in the 2006 Facilities and Real Estate Operating Budget (Other Locations – Energy and Waste Management – FA1357). Any additional costs relating to conservation and demand management programs and projects that are considered to be feasible for implementation in support of attaining 300 Megawatt of conservation and demand by 2010, will be reported back to the Policy and Finance Committee in due course. Detailed work plan and technical and financial resources, including the creation of a Toronto Conservation Reserve Fund, required for undertaking the development of an Energy Plan, will be reported back to the Policy and Finance Committee in September 2006. The Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.- 2-Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) City Council adopt a “Conservation First ” energy strategy that positions conservation and demand management as the preferred first action to meet the energy needs of City of
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.150 | 0.062 |
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".