Assessing occupant satisfaction and energy behaviours in Toronto’s LEED gold high-rise residential buildings
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
Purpose – This paper aims to present four purposes: to assess occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality (IEQ); to determine if occupants appear to be operating their dwellings in an energy efficient manner; to suggest ways that occupant satisfaction and behaviour can help or hinder energy efficiency; and to show that the post-occupancy evaluation approach is an effective tool in diagnosing and improving satisfaction and energy efficiency in high-rise residential buildings. Design/methodology/approach – Beyond measuring occupant satisfaction with IEQ, this paper uses scores and user comments from occupant questionnaires to identify success and indicate frustration and/or confusion with particular building technologies. It also extrapolates the energy efficiency implications of these responses in four Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold residential towers. Findings – The research highlights where problems occur, particularly with the adoption of new technologies which may not be well understood by the occupants. It also identifies behaviour patterns that may negate energy efficiency strategies. Research limitations/implications – The lack of dwelling metre data prevents this research from making causal links between behaviours and their energy implications. Also, the lack of Canadian benchmarks for satisfaction of occupants means that comparisons can only be made to cases from the UK, which is less robust. Originality/value – This type of work has never been done in Canadian residential high rise towers before. It helps to better understand the process of ensuring that occupants successfully adopt innovation that can lead to energy savings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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