www.nrc.ca/irc/ircpubs Canadian Experience in Healthy Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's efforts in healthy housing are based mainly in various low energy house programs. Since the early 1980s, Natural Resources Canada has launched two major programs to promote the construction of energy efficient or low energy houses (Mayo and Sinha 1996, Sinha 1996). The first one is the R-2000 program that was established in 1982. The performance target for R2000 houses was based on a 50% reduction in the energy consumption for space and hot water heating compared to houses built to the 1975 National Building Code of Canada. Even though this performance target was focused on energy conservation, some of the measures incorporated in the R-2000 houses to reduce energy use (e.g., increased insulation level, improved whole house airtightness levels, and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery) also resulted in the added benefit of improved indoor air quality. More than 8000 houses have now been certified as R-2000 houses. In response to the Canadian government's commitment to reduce CO 2 production and global warming, Natural Resources Canada launched the Advanced Houses program in 1991. The Advanced Houses program used the same performance-based standard as for R-2000 houses, but went beyond energy efficiency into issues such as selection of environmentally-friendly building materials, indoor air quality, water and waste reduction, recycling, and elimination of CFCs. To stimulate interest, a competition was organized to challenge the building industry to build houses that were twice as energy efficient and twice as "green" as the best R-2000 houses currently on the market. Of the thirty-one teams entered the competition, ten winning proposals were selected, and the construction of these houses was completed in 1993. Figure 1 compares the purchased energy for R-20...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".