MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891671514 · doi:10.4224/20393390

Lighting quality and office work: a field simulation study

2003· report· en· W6891671514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryIlluminating Engineering SocietyBattelleU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteSteelcase
KeywordsDaylightQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Plan (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Office workers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question this study addressed was, "Can different forms of realistic office lighting affect the performance of office work or the health and well-being of employees?" An office was furnished as a typical open plan workplace for nine workers, with perimeter windows allowing access to a view but limited daylight penetration. Two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, there were provisions for changing between four lighting installations:

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCFrench-language works237,207