Privacy Vs. Daylight: Evaluating the Acceptance of Daylighting Traditional Devices in Contemporary Residential Houses in Bahrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The needs and satisfaction of inhabitants with respect to daylight in Bahraini architecture is not well-established, where cultural norms significantly influence different aspects such as room division and door location.Limited consideration has been given to the needs and satisfaction of residents with respect to daylight in Bahraini architecture, where different aspects including room division and door location are influenced by cultural norms.Therefore, the study aims to assess the importance of visual privacy and daylight in the home through a survey questionnaire administered in Bahrain.The survey aimed to measure the trade-off between visual privacy and daylight at home and to explore current and traditional methods used to achieve visual privacy.Results give a clear indication of the contradictory relationship between the needed visual privacy and the desire for daylight in the space.Cultural and personal preferences are dominated by religious context.More than 95% of respondents considered visual privacy to be important; whereas, 92.07% of people considered daylight important.Moreover, 30.29% of people gave priority to the need for visual privacy over the need for daylight in the space.The visual and aesthetic aspects were clearly considered to be important factors for people.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".