Occupant Satisfaction with Underfloor Air Distribution Systems in a Cold Climate: A Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand to reduce GHG emissions and corporate rethinking of interior environments has encouraged the use of underfloor air distribution systems (UFAD). This relatively new space conditioning system is believed to provide benefits of better energy performance, improved indoor air quality, workplace flexibility, higher levels of occupant comfort and personal control. However most of the research on this technology and its relation to occupant comfort has been limited to laboratory settings and use of Fanger’s heat balance model to determine whether the system provides acceptable thermal comfort. The later fails to confirm that the conditions provided by UFAD are satisfactory to occupants in-situ. This field study of the City of Calgary’s Water Center examined UFAD in terms of occupant comfort in a cold climate. Both physical measurements and occupant response was collected. Overall the findings were very positive. Occupant responses indicated participants were generally satisfied with their comfort level and indoor air temperature. The median PMV value also indicated that the thermal conditions were within the acceptable range.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".