MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024163919 · doi:10.1068/d17412

Domestic Lighting and the off-Grid Quest for Visual Comfort

2013· article· en· W2024163919 on OpenAlexaffabout
Phillip Vannini, Jonathan Taggart

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning D Society and Space · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicImpact of Light on Environment and Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociotechnical systemArchitectural engineeringGridVariable (mathematics)SensibilityElectricityReflection (computer programming)PsychologyEthnographyComputer scienceSociologyAestheticsEngineeringArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceGeographyArtElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from ethnographic research in Canadian off-grid homes, this paper examines the notion of visual comfort. Like other types of comfort, visual comfort is an affective sensibility whose intensity and achievement are highly variable. Through their unique historical trajectories grid-connected homes have achieved and normalized visual comfort in particular ways, but—as the experiences of off-grid homes show—in no way is domestic visual comfort achievable only by flicking on an electric lightbulb powered by distant sociotechnical assemblages. Comfort is, in fact, not a uniform experience and off-gridders' practices show vividly what it means to achieve it differently—in variable intensities and through alternative entanglements of nature and culture. In particular, we argue that off-gridders' comfort is a direct reflection of their involvement in its production, ensuing from their participation in electricity generation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning D Society and SpaceSame topicImpact of Light on Environment and HealthFrench-language works237,207