The Intersection of disciplines: NRC's Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments (COPE) project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current trends in office design - putting everyone in smaller, open-plan spaces, with low partitions - might lead to adverse physical conditions and dissatisfaction for employees. NRC's Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments project combined the expertise of psychologists, acousticians, engineers, and architects in conducting experimental and field research, literature reviews and computer simulations over four years to address three goals:· To develop predictive relationships between office design characteristics and physical conditions· To develop predictive relationships between physical conditions and both environmental and job satisfaction· To combine these results into a software tool for designers to evaluate the effects of various office design choicesEnvironmental and industrial/organizational psychology intersect in the study of work and workplaces. Thus, the project crossed boundaries between psychological disciplines, as well as reaching outside psychology. This unique cross-disciplinary effort enabled the team to bring strong measurement and analysis techniques to bear on understanding both the physical conditions in open-plan offices and the effects of those conditions on occupants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".