Analyzing Typical Multi-residential Building Unit Layouts in Toronto for Optimization in Circadian Lighting, Human Health/ Wellness, and Daylight Availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All types of light have the ability to influence the circadian photo entrainment. It is a given that people spend many hours of their waking day indoors, and therefore insufficient lighting levels or improper lighting design, whether that be access to natural daylight or artificial light, can lead to disruption in the circadian cycle. This is especially true if there is unwanted light exposure at night. Recent studies have shown the importance of healthy, occupant-centric lighting in buildings, however urban apartment housing remains an understudied building type. This project analyzed typical units in multi-unit residential buildings (MURB) to determine how unit design parameters including unit geometry and aspect ratio, balcony design, and interior finishes impacted daylight and circadian lighting for residents. The simulation based study compared lighting results from two early-stage design tools: Adaptive Lighting for Alertness (ALFA) which measures Equivalent Melanopic Lux (EML), and ClimateStudio which was used to evaluate daylight autonomy (DA). This study tested if unit configurations met either or all of the lighting criteria for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard, WELL Building Standard, and the Toronto Green Standard (TGS). A number of typical layouts for single aspect, 1-bedroom, MURB units were tested in various orientations. Using a base case 1:2 aspect ratio, different unit design parameters were tested including orientation, geometry and aspect ratio, window to wall ratio (WWR), and balcony type. Results of this study showed that even units that seem well lit and would meet LEED, do not necessarily meet TGS or WELL. For example, design options with a 1:2 aspect ratio that have a north and west orientation, cannot achieve the WELL Feature 54 Precondition (circadian lighting design) even with a 100% WWR. Results also compared how different rating systems evaluate daylight and the challenges in the assumptions needed for lighting simulation relating to this housing type. Recommendations for evaluating lighting in MURB are discussed, and a critique of current rating tools in relation to MURB are presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".