Passive and low-energy strategies to improve sleep thermal comfort and energy resilience during heat waves and cold snaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep is a pillar of human health and wellbeing. In high- and middle-income countries, there is a great reliance on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC) to control the interior thermal environment in the bedroom. However, these systems are expensive to buy, maintain, and operate while being energy and environmentally intensive-problems that may increase due to climate change. Easily-accessible passive and low-energy strategies, such as fans and electrical heated blankets, address these challenges but their comparative effectiveness for providing comfort in sleep environments has not been studied. We used a thermal manikin to experimentally show that many passive and low-energy strategies are highly effective in supplementing or replacing HVAC systems during sleep. Using passive strategies in combination with low-energy strategies that elevate air movement like ceiling or pedestal fans enhances the cooling effect by three times compared to using fans alone. We extrapolated our experimental findings to estimate heating and cooling effects in two historical case studies: the 2015 Pakistan heat wave and the 2021 Texas power crisis. Passive and low-energy strategies reduced sleep-time heat or cold exposure by 69-91%. The low-energy strategies we tested require one to two orders of magnitude less energy than HVAC systems, and the passive strategies require no energy input. These strategies can also help reduce peak load surges and total energy demand in extreme temperature events. This reduces the need for utility load shedding, which can put individuals at risk of hazardous heat or cold exposure. Our results may serve as a starting point for evidence-based public health guidelines on how individuals can sleep better during heat waves and cold snaps without relying on HVAC.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".