Key findings from a online survey on the use of daylight simulation programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a rapidly changing world, design professionals rely more than ever on solid performance measures to support their design decisions. The role of computerized building design tools is to provide such information efficiently. Given the breadth of choices and concerns that a design team is confronted with, various design aspects constantly compete for the team's attention. To remain competitive, design professionals must weigh the value of information gained through any one simulation tool against the invested time and financial resources, as well as against the value of comparable information that might be gained through the use of other or no tools. Because daylighting is a declared design feature of virtually all 'sustainable/green' buildings, and because it is difficult to evaluate its quality and quantity in a space through simple rules of thumb, daylighting software should have a high rate of acceptance and adoption within the market. This is the underlying notion for the development of daylight simulation tools. The research described in this paper was motivated by the authors' observation that despite the availability of simplified and detailed daylight simulation methods, none of these tools has yet penetrated the building design market to any great degree. The objective of this study therefore was to identify weaknesses of existing daylighting design software packages, better understand design practitioners' needs, and accordingly provide guidance to software developers. The paper briefly summarizes results from previous surveys on the use of building simulation software and presentssome key findings of an online survey that particularly concentrated on daylight simulation software. This work was carried out within the context of the International Energy Agency's (IEA) research project 'Task 31: Daylighting Buildings in the 21st Century'. The project's overall objective is to foster the use of daylight in commercial buildings through a better understanding of occupant needs', more integrated lighting and shading controls, and improved daylighting design software. This study contributed to the latter work package.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".