Differences in teachers’ satisfaction with indoor environmental quality and their well-being in new, renovated and non-renovated schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies on buildings’ renovations in relation to indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and occupants’ well-being have focused on offices, while those investigating schools focused on students rather than teachers. Most of these studies limited their assessment of well-being to occupants’ satisfaction with IEQ factors, overlooking essential aspects related to psychological, social and physical well-being. This article presents results of a research conducted in 32 schools in Manitoba, Canada, to assess teachers’ IEQ satisfaction and well-being in new, renovated and non-renovated schools. The research involved adapting and refining an IEQ satisfaction survey and developing and refining three new surveys to assess teachers’ psychological, social and physical well-being. The results of the refined surveys showed statistically significant differences in teachers’ satisfaction with IEQ factors between the new and renovated schools on one hand and the non-renovated ones on the other. However, no statistically significant differences were found in teachers’ psychological, social and physical well-being perceptions between all pairs of the three school categories analysed. Association analyses suggested a potential indirect impact of schools’ renovations on teachers’ well-being via their satisfaction with IEQ. The results of this study should aid school managers in making strategic decisions about the maintenance of their existing schools.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".