Feedback and adaptive behaviour in green 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
The article explores how feedback is provided in the design and delivery of two green Canadian office buildings and how this shapes the knowledge and adaptive behaviour of occupants. A central theme is whether occupants are treated as passive or active in establishing the comfort conditions of their immediate environment. In this exploration, the authors define feedback acting on a number of timescales/processes as a key element of occupant engagement. The available metrics of feedback and engagement are tested through a comparative post-occupancy evaluation of the two buildings, showing that occupants draw on a range of sources to form opinions about how well they know a building, how ‘green’ it is and whether or not it is comfortable. Results suggest that occupants can only truly be active participants if they receive effective feedback on their adaptive behaviour (engaging with building controls and complaints). Lack of effective feedback can render occupants passive participants, whose adaptive behaviour rather than improving their understanding of how the building works and overall comfort levels can have the opposite effect. Findings underscore the many challenges in interpreting occupants' subjective statements about knowledge, comfort and engagement with a building.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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