Wood perception in daylit interior spaces: An experimental study using scale models and questionnaires
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
This paper explores the impact of daylit wooden environments on human perception and well-being. Several studies have shown that the use of wood in furniture, interior surfaces, and decoration helps create warm, bright, and pleasant ambiences, enhancing psychological well-being and comfort when compared to other materials. The main objective of this research was to assess the effects of different colors, finish, and ratio of wooden surfaces combinations on human perception. More specifically, participants compared simultaneously five different interior wooden scale models of room environments under the natural light of the northern hemisphere in terms of their appreciation, visual comfort, and well-being. The survey involved 80 participants with an exploratory questionnaire in order to compare and classify the different models. Conclusions showed a preference for clear, bright, and warm models for cognitive and small-scale tasks. Darker models in terms of reflectance and lighting ambiences were the least preferred, especially for women.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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