View size and office luminance effects on employee satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this parametric study, the influence of office design variables on occupant satisfaction was examined, using high dynamic range (HDR) images as stimuli. The setting was an open plan office with cubicles defined by modular systems furniture. Photographs were taken of the view afforded to the occupant sitting in the second row in from the window. Accessible window area varied depending on combinations of panel height, panel material (opaque or semitransparent) and window blind condition. Twelve HDR images taken from the viewpoint of this occupant were displayed on a special HDR computer monitor at realistic luminance levels (average luminance range: 24-348 cd/m2; for the image with the lowest average luminance, range was 3-82 cd/m2; for the image with the highest average luminance, range was 5-2608 cd/m2). Thirty-six participants viewed each image for 30 seconds with the instruction to imagine it as their own workplace, and then rated their satisfaction with the image on eight scales. Satisfaction with amount of view, visual comfort, pleasantness and spaciousness increased with both image luminance and view size, although most of the curves were non-linear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".