MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415152039 · doi:10.1177/14771535251368380

An ipRGC-influenced/Non-Visual Spectral Occupant Model for lighting design, Part 2: Photobiological model implementation

2025· article· en· W4415152039 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Alstan Jakubiec, A Alight

Bibliographic record

VenueLighting Research & Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlertnessElectric lightLight-emitting diodeVisualizationSmart lighting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper pilots a method for the assessment of non-visual lighting effects based upon annual full-spectrum lighting calculations termed an ipRGC-influenced/Non-Visual Spectral Occupant Model (iNSOM). iNSOM calculates annualized melanopic irradiance, described in our previous paper, and derives seasonal and time-of-day metrics based on a collection of photobiological models from Postnova et al ., Abeysuria et al . and Tekieh et al . to predict circadian dynamics, alertness and melatonin levels due to light exposure. Quantitative outputs of these metrics and novel spatial visualizations are then used to evaluate lighting design based on the predicted intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC)-influenced effect on occupants. The model is demonstrated using an example hospital ward model and tested under three daylight, electric light and screen device operational scenarios and two types of sleep quality. A comparative analysis between iNSOM and existing ipRGC-influenced lighting design metrics and standards demonstrates how ipRGC-influenced alertness and health metrics differ from existing saturation-based ipRGC-influenced lighting metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLighting Research & TechnologySame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207