Designing learned CO <sub>2</sub> ‐based occupancy estimation in smart buildings
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
Many applications, such as smart buildings, crowd flow, action recognition, and assisted living, rely on occupancy information. Although the use of smart cameras and computer vision can assist with these tasks and provide accurate occupancy information, it can be cost prohibitive, invasive, and difficult to scale or generalise to different environments. An alternative solution should bring similar accuracy while minimising the listed problems. This work demonstrates that a scalable wireless sensor network with CO 2 ‐based estimation is a viable alternative. To support many applications, a solution must be transferable and must handle not knowing the physical system model; instead, it must learn to model CO 2 dynamics. This work presents a viable prototype and uses the captured data to train machine learning‐based occupancy estimation systems. Models are trained under varying conditions to assess the consequences of design decisions on performance. Four different learning models were compared: gradient boosting, k‐nearest neighbours (KNN), linear discriminant analysis, and random forests. With sufficient labelled data, the KNN model produced peak results with a root‐mean‐square error value of 1.021.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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