MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lighting Quality Contributions from Biopsychological Processes

2001· article· en· W2314631300 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

VenueJournal of the Illuminating Engineering Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)PsychologyEngineeringEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal processes, both biological and psychological, are thought to mediate the relationships between luminous conditions and such behavioral outcomes as task performance, mood, social behavior, aesthetic judgements and satisfaction. This review paper summarizes the state of knowledge concerning mediating biopsychological processes: visibility, photobiology, and stress and arousal. Visibility is well-understood and obviously relevant to lighting practice. Photobiology, however, is a new entrant to the realm of lighting research; its findings could have important implications for recommended illuminance levels if these were based on more than visibility. Stress and arousal, interrelated concepts, are popular notions, but close examination reveals only weak support for these mechanisms as explanations of lighting effects on behavior. The improved organization of research and increased predictive power that would result from clear exposition of theoretical mechanisms in lighting research holds promise for progress in linking research and application.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.310 · 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