Occupant-adaptive façade interaction: relationships and conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive or Intelligent façades are those that can interact with users and dynamically vary their performance or properties (controlling thermal or solar energy, air flow and/or daylight) in response to changing external conditions and indoor demands. Consequently, adaptive façades could help to ensure occupant comfort, health, well-being and satisfaction, while allowing resource-efficient building operation. However, effective adaptive façade solutions that provide an optimal balance between user comfort, satisfaction and energy efficiency cannot be achieved without knowledge of the multidisciplinary complexity of the user-façade interaction. The main objective of this paper is to preliminary review and analyse the existing literature on user interaction with intelligent buildings,<br/>especially with façades, and to propose a conceptual framework to capture the multi-disciplinary and multi-domain complexity of user interaction with adaptive façades. The interaction between adaptive façades and occupants is then modelled as a closed loop of information and action exchange. This paper concludes indicating which are the future research needs to be addressed in order to define what is a satisfactory interaction strategy between occupants and façades.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".