MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142631110 · doi:10.1177/096032710003200401

Daylight availability in top-lit atria: prediction of skylight transmittance and daylight factor

2000· article· en· W2142631110 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdelaziz Laouadi, Morad R. Atif

Bibliographic record

VenueLighting Research & Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsSkylightDaylightTransmittanceCeiling (cloud)OvercastEnvironmental scienceMeteorologySkySunlightAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingOpticsEngineeringPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrium and skylight shapes are important architectural design elements that influence daylight availability within the space and, therefore, lighting energy consumption. There is a lack of prediction models for skylight transmittance. and daylight availability in atria. A new concept was developed to predict the diffuse transmittance of skylights. A skylight shape is converted into a representative shape through a shape parameter. Generic formulae for the skylight diffuse transmittance were developed under different sky conditions. A zonal model combined with the flux transfer method was developed to predict daylight availability in top-lit atria through the predictions of the average daylight factor (DF) at the atrium floor and ceiling (non-glazed portion of the roof), and the local DF normal to walls. The DF model was compared with currently available models derived from theory and experiments under artificial skies. The results showed that the computed e transmittance for translucent skylights. under real partly cloudy or dear skies may reach up to 33% in summer and 56% in winter higher than that under CIE overcast skies. The developed zonal model yielded very dose results to the models based on the nnite-dement method. However, models based on physical scale measurements lack general consensus among themselves, and may produce average DF values at floor level up to 43% higher than those produced by the zonal model. Physical scale models may also yield local DF values normal to walls up to 50% lower than those predicted by the zonal model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLighting Research & TechnologySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207