Lighting quality and office work: two field simulation experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes two experiments concerning the effects of variations in lighting quality on office worker performance, health, and well-being. Experiment 1 had four experimental conditions: a regular array of fully direct recessed parabolic luminaires; direct/indirect luminaires with no control; direct/indirect luminaires with a switchable desk lamp; and, workstation-specific direct/indirect luminaires with control over the direct portion. Experiment 2 contrasted two conditions with no individual lighting control: a regular array of recessed prismatic lensed luminaires, and suspended direct/indirect luminaires. Participants considered the direct/indirect systems to be more comfortable than the direct-only systems, with a further increase in comfort associated with individual control in Experiment 1. There were no simple main effects of lighting quality on the performance of any task, although the expected changes in performance associated with task visibility, practice, and fatigue were found. Interactions between lighting quality and time suggested that having a degree of individual control of lighting tended to maintain motivation and vigilance over the day.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it