Workplace wellbeing and interior design: A systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a systematic review of the literature on workplace wellbeing and interior design, exploring the creation and evaluation of appealing environments that enhance employee wellbeing. This paper adopts a systematic approach to review using the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Multiple databases were searched. The final review included 55 studies out of 472 that examined factors related to workplace wellbeing. The findings of this study suggest that background noise and open-plan workspaces negatively affect workplace wellbeing, while visual connections with plants and natural objects enhance it. This paper extends the current literature in two ways. Firstly, by highlighting key factors that impact workplace wellbeing. Secondly, it divides factors that contribute to workplace wellbeing into three categories: positives, negatives, and moderate impact factors. Design professionals and workplace managers can utilize this information to identify features that contribute most to the overall work environment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it