Sustainable and Smart: Rethinking What a Smart Home is
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
The term Smart Home typically refers to dwellings augmented with high-tech responsive systems such that heating, air conditioning, lighting, appliances, entertainment outlets, and architectural components are computerized and managed, often via a remote control. Smart homes promise comfort, convenience, and resource conservation in the near future. Yet the notion of increased dependency on technology for comfort and efficiency (and hence, sustainably) needs to be revised. While we (justifiably) expect our dwellings to use technological advances to sense and respond to our needs, a growing body of literature [1-5] warns against increased dependencies and amplified complexification, given the resource depletion anticipated in the future. Through examples and discussions drawn primarily from vernacular architecture discourse, this paper addresses this dichotomy. We investigate how smart homes can be re-defined to better fit sustainability goals while anticipating technology limitations. We introduce members of the ICT4S community to the sustainability potentials of vernacular domestic architecture and inspire them by its smart responses to human needs and harsh conditions. And finally, we argue that re-employing tried-and-true vernacular techniques in conjunction with ICT systems can offer smart yet simple and feasible solutions to future housing needs while being inherently more sustainable from an environmental and operational stance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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