MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Prototype and Measurement Driven Study of Indoor Air Quality

2023· article· en· W4383108660 on OpenAlexaff
Shaikha Alkaabi, Fatema S. Suhail, Haleema Almansoori, Asma Alhammadi, Shriya Kulkarni, Bivin Pradeep, Parag Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUnited Arab Emirates University
KeywordsAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceIndoor air qualityArchitectural engineeringQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceHumidityIndoor airMeteorologyEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People spend a considerable amount of time indoors than outdoors. Given the hot or cold climatic conditions that prevail in different geographies, most indoor environments tend to be heated/cooled for ensuring occupant comfort. The quality of air that people breathe in such indoor environments is therefore vital for their long term health. Whilst we hear a lot about air pollution in cities, there is seldom a talk about indoor air quality. This paper elaborates on a proof of concept prototype for air quality monitoring using open off-the-shelf components and highlights findings from measurements conducted using this prototype in buildings on a University campus. Measurements were conducted in classrooms in different buildings at different times of the day with different temperature, humidity levels in these premises. Findings from this study show that air quality is fairly stable and within the acceptable limits across the different measurement locations. One of the outliers was a small dorm room with many people present during the measurement duration which exhibited degradation in the air quality level. This highlights that in crowded indoor environments, it may be necessary to closely monitor air quality and provide the necessary countermeasures to improve it.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207