Occupant trust in indoor air quality in a large office building after an emergent wildfire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to establish a reliable scale measuring occupants’ levels of environmental trust in their work settings’ indoor air quality and explore the relationship between occupants’ levels of environmental trust and their perceived control over the air quality in their workspace. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted occupant surveys concerning indoor air quality in an office building, and collected corresponding indoor air quality measurements. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results are reported to reveal occupants’ levels of environmental trust and perceived control. Findings Results reveal that psychological perceptions of indoor air quality can be quite neutral, even shortly after an extreme wildfire event resulting in very poor air quality in an urban area. Occupants’ sense of trust that their office building could protect them from harmful air outside, and their belief that the building could protect them from seasonal smoky conditions, each correlated positively with employees’ sense of control over the indoor air quality in their personal workspace. Originality/value This case study adds to an interdisciplinary understanding for facility managers and organizational leaders concerning a way to measure occupants’ sense of control over the indoor air quality in their building, as well as their environmental trust in terms of how protected they feel from harmful air quality conditions.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".