Pilot assessment of lighting levels in indoor pools: Staff and user perceptions as well as quantitative measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lighting of an indoor space is important to ensure the safety of occupants as well as illuminate the space to allow individuals to perform tasks. This is especially relevant to an indoor swimming pool as adequate lighting is crucial for preventing accidents as well as ensuring the well-being of pool users, visitors and staff. This pilot study evaluated occupants’ perceptions of lighting adequacy in public pools as well as the compliance of lighting levels in these pools with the Ontario Building Code, which mandates a minimum of 200 lux. Conducted in six indoor Class A pools within an Ontario municipality, the study obtained survey feedback from 92 respondents, consisting of 59 pool visitors and 33 pool staff members. Concurrently, quantitative measurements of lighting levels (in lux) during the daytime and at nighttime were collected. The survey results found that, while overall satisfaction with lighting in shower areas was high, there was notable dissatisfaction with respect to the passageways and main pool areas. These perceptions varied by time of day whereby “poor” ratings in the main pool area more than doubled at nighttime. The percentage of lighting measurements below the 200 lux threshold varied across the six pools, ranging from 0% at Site A to 41% at Site F during the day, and from 0% at Site A to 50% at Site F at night. Overall, these results highlight the need for improved lighting to enhance user satisfaction and safety, ensure compliance with the building code, and provide guidance for future research on indoor environmental quality.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".