MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106336254 · doi:10.11575/prism/50719

Assessing the Impact of Variations in Energy Rates and Carbon Price Projections on Low-Carbon Building System Designs in Canada

2025· other· en· W7106336254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research Council
KeywordsGreenhouse gasElectricityNatural gasCarbon priceElectricity priceElectricity systemEnergy (signal processing)Energy systemEmissions trading

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving Canada’s 2050 net-zero targets requires strategic choices in low-carbon building systems, with projections of natural gas and electricity rates, along with carbon pricing, playing a critical role in their financial feasibility analysis. Currently, many organizations still rely on fixed escalations of energy rates, risking inaccurate feasibility assessments. This research examines how six institutional projection scenarios of end-use energy rates and carbon prices affect GHG emissions and costs of residential building system retrofits in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario from 2025 to 2050. Results show substantial cost and emissions variations: Alberta’s low natural gas prices create the largest short-term cost gap for retrofits, while British Columbia and Ontario achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 from retrofits even under modest scenarios. The findings also highlight how the natural gas and electricity cost gap decreases over time, and how utilizing scenario-based projections is important to support cost-effective, low-carbon building system decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→