MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910238708 · doi:10.4224/20386513

Acoustic satisfaction in open-plan offices: review and recommendations

2003· report· en· W6910238708 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Works and Government Services CanadaNatural Resources CanadaSteelcase
KeywordsContentmentDistractionAccommodationState (computer science)Legibility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open-plan offices lack walls and doors. Although one common assumption has been that such a design would encourage communication between co-workers, it has become apparent that the primary source of discomfort for occupants of the open-plan office environment is unwanted sound. This paper reports on a literature review of the relationship between acoustics and satisfaction in the open-plan office, conducted with the aim of developing empirically derived recommendations for satisfactory acoustic conditions. For the purposes of this review, acoustic satisfaction was defined as a state of contentment with acoustic conditions; it is inclusive of annoyance, loudness, and distraction - all concepts used by one or another researcher in this area to assess subjective experiences associated with the acoustic environment in offices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.279 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCFrench-language works237,207