The effect of coated glazing on visual perception: A pilot study using scaleamodels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot study for investigating the effect of six coated glazing materials on visual perception of the interior and of the view out in scaled rooms is presented. The study, which involved 18 subjects, is carried out in Hørsholm (Denmark, lat. 55.4°N), under overcast skies and a north orientation. The methodology involves subjective ratings using a questionnaire and seven grade bipolar scales. The results of the statistical analysis (ANOVA) show that despite significant amplitude in daylight transmittance (50%—79%), the glazing type did not have any statistically significant effect on the perception of the sharpness of shadows in the room. It is also found that higher transmittance glazing (77%—79%) resulted in views that are more glaring compared with the views obtained with the other glazing types. In terms of light level, the reference glazing (which contained an iron-free pane) results in statistically significant differences in the ratings (brighter room) compared with the ratings from all glazing types, including glazing types of similar transmittance. Finally, it is found that higher transmittance glazing types result in more positive ratings for factors, such as naturalness, beauty, and pleasantness and sharpness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".