MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099145519

Domestic water heating and water heater energy consumption

2005· article· en· W7099145519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorage water heaterWater heatingWater heaterNatural gasElectricityStorage heaterConsumption (sociology)Heating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The views and analysis contained in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors, and should not be attributed to any agency associated with CBEEDAC, including Natural Resources Canada. Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to review relevant literature and technology concerning energy consumption for domestic water heating. Domestic water heating is estimated to be the second largest energy end-use for Canadian households, accounting for approximately 22 percent of total household energy consumption. Although the proportion of houses from 1945 to 1990 that uses natural gas for water heating and the proportion that uses electricity for this purpose are similar, in aggregate the general tendency is for new houses to increasingly use natural gas rather than electricity for domestic water heating requirements, even though natural gas is not available in all areas. Current domestic water heater standards and efficiencies are reviewed, and the various types of water heaters available, and the extent to which they are in use, are examined. Conventional tank water heater systems are by far the most common type of system used throughout Canada, although there is greater variation in water heater equipment in the Atlantic

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207