Absenteeism, Performance and Occupant Satisfaction with the Indoor Environment of Green Toronto Schools
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 study aimed to compare a number of quantitative and qualitative aspects of usage across a sample of 10 conventional, 20 energy-retrofitted and three green Toronto schools. Student, teacher and staff absenteeism data, as well as Grade 3 and 6 student performance data on reading, writing and arithmetic tests administered by Ontario’s Education Quality and Accountability Office were collected. A survey of 150 teachers was conducted to investigate their satisfaction with the indoor air quality, lighting, thermal comfort and acoustics of their school buildings. The statistical analysis of the data showed that teachers in green schools were in general more satisfied with their classrooms and personal workspaces’ lighting, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, heating, ventilation and air conditioning than teachers in the other schools. Nevertheless, they were less satisfied with acoustics. Student, teacher and staff absenteeism in green schools also improved by 2–7.5%, whereas student performance improved by 8–19% when compared with conventional schools. However, these improvements were not statistically significant and could not therefore be generalised to all Toronto public schools. Whether these marginal improvements justify the extra cost premium of green buildings remains an active contentious topic that will need further investigation.
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) | 0.001 | 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