The effectiveness of light-emitting diode lighting for providing circadian stimulus in office spaces while minimizing energy use
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
Architectural lighting has traditionally addressed visual performance and horizontal illuminance on the work plane, later focussing on energy efficiency, while only recently paying particular regard to human health outcomes. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of several light-emitting diode lighting strategies for delivering circadian stimulus to occupants of a typical office space while minimizing energy use. The study employed photometric simulations in a typical open-office space, delivering a criterion circadian stimulus of 0.3 to calculation points modelled at the simulated occupants’ eye level. Six luminaire types, two luminous intensity distributions, six spectral power distributions and two horizontal illuminances were evaluated, resulting in 144 unique lighting conditions. Additionally, the study calculated the discomfort glare for selected luminaires with the highest total lumen output, smallest aperture and direct-only luminous intensity distributions at the higher of the two horizontal illuminances (500 lx). The most impactful strategy involved supplementing common overhead lighting with a desktop luminaire delivering light directly to the simulated office occupants’ eyes, which provided greater circadian stimulus and used less energy than overhead luminaires that were capable of delivering the criterion circadian stimulus of 0.3.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it