MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387048398 · doi:10.3390/su151914232

Review of Engineering Controls for Indoor Air Quality: A Systems Design Perspective

2023· article· en· W4387048398 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndoor air qualityArchitectural engineeringFlexibility (engineering)Computer sciencePerspective (graphical)Air quality indexBuilding designRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to review the engineering controls for indoor air quality (IAQ) from a systems design perspective. As a result of the review, we classify the literature content into three categories: (1) indoor air treatments, (2) dissemination control strategies, and (3) information technology. Indoor air treatments can be generally interpreted as the “cleaning” aspect, which covers ventilation and contaminant removal techniques. Dissemination control focuses on how contaminants generated in an indoor space can be transmitted, where four types of dissemination are classified. The category of information technology discusses IAQ sensors for monitoring, as well as the applications of the Internet of Things and IAQ data. Then, we further analyze the reviewed engineering controls by performing systems and functional analysis. Along with a discussion of IAQ functions, we suggest some systems design techniques, such as functional decoupling and design for flexibility/resilience, which are expected to promote more systems thinking in designing IAQ solutions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207