The physiological and psychological effects of windows, daylight, and view at home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the discovery that intrinsically photoreceptive retinal ganglion cells are responsible for entraining circadian rhythms to patterns of light and dark, and furthermore that those cells are most sensitive to short-wavelength optical radiation, considerable attention has focused on the possibility of using daylight to achieve a healthy lit environment. Daylight is rich in that area of the spectrum, and bright at the times of day that seem most important to these processes. The science has moved rapidly in the ten years since the last substantive reviews of the state of the art on the health and well-being effects of daylight and windows, making it time for a renewed examination of the literature. Moreover, there has been scant attention paid to the role of daylight in residential buildings. This presentation will give a brief overview of three processes by which windows and skylights in homes might influence health and well-being: light dose, view, and architectural aesthetics. Windows and skylights also influence long-term sustainability, through which they indirectly will affect health and well-being of present and future generations. The presentation will conclude with suggested research directions to bring together these strands, as will be necessary for the derivation of practical recommendations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.024 | 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".