MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7049224116

NRC-IRC imagines the future of solid-state lighting in offices

2011· article· en· W7049224116 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Electrical Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersOffice of Energy EfficiencyNatural Resources CanadaPublic Works and Government Services Canada
KeywordsLED lampSample (material)Government (linguistics)Smart lightingMarket researchFluorescent lamp
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lighting Sub-program at the National Research Council of Canada Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) has examined the effects of office lighting on occupants' perception, performance, and satisfaction and on energy-efficiency for over 30 years. The promise of LED technology brings together these two issues. Market acceptance of the new technology will require that it be trusted as healthful and safe, and the initial cost premium will mean that the new systems need to offer features that users value, if LEDs are to displace the incumbent fluorescent technology. NRC-IRC began in 2008 to investigate LED technologies with two overlapping activities: the development of new ideas for office lighting with LEDs, and laboratory experiments addressing how people would use and respond to the colour-tuning capabilities of solid-state lighting systems. This article gives a sample of the activities in this project.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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