Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: research and practice recommendations
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 paper compares research participants' choices of office lighting with recommended practice and existing research, and concludes with practical recommendations for lighting installations. Participants were given the opportunity to choose lighting conditions for VDT office work as part of an experiment concerning the effects of individual control over lighting on task performance and satisfaction. Most participants' choices bettered current energy code specifications for lighting energy use, while largely following both CIBSE- and IESNA-recomrnended practice for desktop illuminance. Average luminance ratios between the VDT n and background were lower than recommended practice but consistent with those in other investigations. No effects of age or sex were observed. Farticzpants who made lighting choices at the end of the day-long session chose conditions that created less VDT-screen glare from reflected images, as compared with those who chose lighting conditions at the start of the day. Despite a high degree of variability in the chosen luminous conditions, overall ratings of lighting quality and environmental satisfaction were high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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