Estimating radiation received by a person in the landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated a simple method for estimating radiation received by a person. The site is a typical urban street located in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The radiation in the 13 locations in August, 2002, was measured 3 times a day: morning, noon and afternoon; in 3 categories: sunny locations, locations shaded by buildings and trees. To find a simple method, directionally incoming radiation values were measured and compared to the proportion of each direction. Each direction had certain proportions of shortwave and longwave radiation over time periods. To estimate an amount of radiation, Campbell & Norman's (1998) and Brown & Gillespie's (1986) models were used with view factors defined by fish-eye lens photographs, and the enhanced radiation models were developed and tested. The radiation received by a person with Underwood & Ward's (1966) and Fanger's (1970) models was ergonomically analyzed. The differentials between the smallest and largest one were approximately 50W in sunny locations, 17W in locations shaded by buildings, and 18W in the morning and 29W in the afternoon in locations shaded by trees.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".