MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097201794

FEASIBILITY OF LOW-RISE NET-ZERO ENERGY HOUSES FOR TORONTO

2007· article· en· W7097201794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, Agriculture Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayback periodRenewable energyEfficient energy useElectricityEnergy consumptionEnergy (signal processing)Energy sourceEnergy accountingZero-energy building
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Net-zero energy homes are highly energy efficient homes that produce as much energy as it consumes annually. Using concepts of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, it is possible for homeowners to lower their energy requirements and costs. A base home was redesigned to become a Net-Zero energy home. This base home’s energy consumption was found to be 3860 m3 of natural gas and 10750 kWh of electricity annually. Using the program HOT2000, the details of the home were modified into an upgraded home. Implementing a ground source heat pump, solar DHW system, additional insulation, high performance windows, high efficiency HRV, energy efficient appliances, and CFL bulbs reduced the annual energy consumption. The upgrades decreased the energy usage to only 6960 kWh/year of electricity with no usage of natural gas. The increase in efficiency allowed for implementation of a PV system that could produce enough energy for the upgraded home. With the implementation of the PV system, the Net-Zero energy home is complete. RETScreen, an economic analysis program, was used to analyze the payback period of the ground source heat pump alone to be 3.4 years and the PV system alone to be 22.1 years. An estimation of the payback period for the upgrades of the entire home, all systems included, was found to be 31 years. And in Ontario with the standard offer of $0.42/kWh buyback of energy generated by PV cells it is much more feasible in Ontario. The payback reduces to 19 years, which is a 40 % reduction in the payback period. If more offers like this were created the idea of a NZE home is much more feasible and will bring us closer to the idea of NZE.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy, Environment, Agriculture AnalysisFrench-language works237,207