MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416170388 · doi:10.1155/ina/9091911

Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Natatoriums: A CiteSpace‐Based Bibliometric Review

2025· article· en· W4416170388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feng Qian, Luo Yu, Li Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIndoor Air · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndoor air qualityVentilation (architecture)Thematic mapAir quality indexPollutantAir pollutantsQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric review of research on ventilation and air quality in swimming pool facilities from 2001 to 2025. Based on literature retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, this study employs the CiteSpace visualization tool to analyze and shows that research has evolved from basic assessments of air exchange to multidimensional concerns including disinfection by‐products (DBPs), pollutant exposure, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency. Despite these advances, significant gaps remain: most studies prioritize energy performance over detailed pollutant control, long‐term high‐resolution monitoring data are scarce, and ventilation standards often lack explicit criteria for swimmer health. Geographically, Canada, China, and the United States have led contributions in this field. The findings demonstrate a thematic transition from experience‐based to precision control, supported by tools such as CFD, TRNSYS, and model predictive control, and signal growing potential for artificial intelligence and data‐driven facility management. This review identifies core themes and technical trajectories, offering theoretical insight and decision‐making support for the design and operation of low‐carbon, health‐oriented swimming pool environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.030
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndoor AirSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207