MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6947825104 · doi:10.4224/40003165

Office lighting for light-sensitive individuals: a pilot test

2023· report· en· W6947825104 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilot testTest (biology)FidelityPopulationQuality (philosophy)Smart lighting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes a pilot test of a new lighting solution in summer-fall 2021, conducted to identify a lighting system that might serve the needs of both the community of light-sensitive employees and the larger general population of office workers. The novel lighting system was chosen based on the office lighting literature, and included individual dimming control, higher colour fidelity (Ra~ 90 vs Ra~80), a lower correlated colour temperature (3500 K vs 4000 K), and luminaire optics delivering more flux vertically than horizontally than the recessed prismatic lensed luminaires typical of local offices. The report describes the lighting system and the test and reports the successful outcome: The new lighting system provided better lighting quality for the light-sensitive participants and for the general population.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→