MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161942709 · doi:10.1177/1477153506070994

Occupant use of switching and dimming controls in offices

2006· article· en· W2161942709 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLighting Research & Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeskOffice workersOverhead (engineering)Architectural engineeringEngineeringWorkspaceTelecommunicationsComputer scienceOperations managementElectrical engineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a larger study sponsored by the Light Right Consortium, temporary office workers spent a day in an office working under one of four different lighting installations. For two of these installations the office workers had the freedom to adjust the lighting of the cubicles they occupied: either with a switchable desk lamp, or varying the direct component of a continuously dimmable overhead direct/indirect luminaire. This paper examines the illuminances chosen under these two conditions, compares the results with those found in other field and laboratory studies, and addresses pertinent questions about the behaviour of office workers when they have the freedom to adjust the lighting of their workspaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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