Impact of classroom environment on student wellbeing in higher education: Review and future directions
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
Given the emerging concern for student wellbeing in public health discourse, a question arises: What role do campus buildings play in shaping the overall wellbeing of students? Following the PRISMA guideline, this study reviews the current building science literature that explores the relationship between higher education learning environments, specifically classroom spaces, and the wellbeing of students. Our investigation reveals that the existing literature primarily frames student wellbeing in terms of individual comfort and health. While acknowledging the importance of these aspects, we emphasize the desirability of embracing wider social and collective dimensions from an interdisciplinary perspective. We also advocate for a departure from the traditional approach that focuses primarily on mitigating adverse environmental effects to one focused on net positive environmental and human benefits. Encompassing these two perspectives, this paper presents a holistic approach to better understand the wellbeing of both individuals and the communities within educational settings. This comprehensive perspective aims to highlight the diverse and collective dimensions influencing campus wellbeing, contributing to a regenerative pathway toward achieving net-positive design and sustainability in both human and environmental terms.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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