Choosing between modern and heritage buildings for professional services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of building façades in the consumer choice process is not well understood but arguably influences consumers' first impressions of a business and the level of service provided by the professional working within. In two studies, photographs representing exteriors of two building types (purpose-built office and converted heritage house) were shown to participants who chose between them for hypothetical dental, legal, financial, and medical services and assessed them for expected comfort and quality of service. In Study 1, students preferred office buildings for all services. In Study 2, community residents also preferred office buildings for dental, financial, and medical services but not for legal services. In both studies, participants had more experience with office buildings compared to heritage houses for all four services and anticipated more comfort and service quality in offices, especially for dental, financial, and medical services compared legal services. However, more comfort was expected by those in Study 2 when considering legal services over the other three services in heritage houses. Although office buildings are commonly experienced and preferred as settings of professional practice, heritage houses can be legible as places to access comfortable, quality service.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".