MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309912596 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2278881/v1

Indoor environmental quality and employees’ workplace satisfaction: a case study of university buildings

2022· preprint· en· W4309912596 on OpenAlexaff
Roohollah Taherkhani, Najme Hashempour, Shadi Motamedi, Somayeh Asadi

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoorsThermal comfortEnvironmental qualityArchitectural engineeringQuality (philosophy)User satisfactionBusinessOrder (exchange)Computer scienceEngineeringGeographyPolitical scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is an effective factor in evaluating the performance of employees in the workplace. This paper aims to investigate the IEQ of an office building of Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), by evaluating the relationship between staffs' satisfaction and the orientation, window to wall ratio (WWR), and their gender. The results indicated that the size and landscape of the rooms, WWR, place of worktables, cooling and heating facilities and lighting systems, upgrading partitions and adding new spaces without increasing systems capacity, and the shared space usage by multi-users are the key factors that impact users’ satisfaction. Moreover, user comfort did not only depend on the features and equipment of the building and physical and physiological factors, but also on the habits, culture, and expectations of individuals. The results showed the same thermal satisfaction for both genders in the warm season and slightly higher dissatisfaction of females (4.62% higher compared to men) in the cold season. In addition, the main sources of noise were from the doors and the students passing the hallways. In conclusion, improving indoor air quality and thermal comfort were the most important ways to improve users' performance. This study is the first research concentrated on evaluating the current status of offices and presenting solutions to improve the IEQ factors in order to improve IKIU employees’ performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207