MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demographics as Determinants of Building Occupants’ Indoor Environmental Perceptions: Insights from a Machine Learning Incremental Modeling and Analysis Approach

2022· article· en· W4225326738 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrahim Ali, Min Lin, Maedot S. Andargie, Elie Azar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing in Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestPredictive modellingPerceptionDemographicsComputer scienceMachine learningBuilt environmentEngineeringPsychologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between the demographical characteristics of building occupants and their perception of indoor comfort is increasingly being studied. However, the added value from accounting for such characteristics when modeling and predicting occupants’ perceptions remains unclear. An incremental machine learning (ML) modeling and analysis approach is proposed to quantify the influence of four demographical factors (gender, age, nationality, and time lived in the environment) on occupants’ perceptions of their indoor environment conditions. A three-step methodology is presented: (1) data collection through sensors and a questionnaire administered on 206 occupants of academic and office buildings in Abu Dhabi, UAE, (2) development of ML models (i.e., support vector machine, random forest, and gradient boosting) to predict occupants’ perceptions under different scenarios of demographical representation (i.e., from no representation to all demographical parameters included), and (3) analysis of the impact of demographical parameters’ inclusion on the performance of the ML models in terms of predictive accuracy, F1-scores, and computing time. Results confirm that including demographical variables could increase prediction accuracy and F1-scores by approximately 19% and 56%, respectively. However, in some instances, the inclusion of these variables reduced model performance while increasing computing time by as much as 50%. A detailed discussion is presented on the comparative performance of the different tested ML algorithms and the need to strike a balance between increasing model complexity and computational costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing in Civil EngineeringSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207