MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7080835380 · doi:10.7275/btes.3364

Evaluating Healthy Housing Parameters in Co-op Housing Examples in Canada

2025· article· en· W7080835380 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Massachusetts (UMass) Amherst · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaylightFacadeNatural ventilationSpace (punctuation)Ventilation (architecture)Plan (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many important aspects to consider in evaluating healthy housing, and this study focused specifically on three main parameters: daylight, ventilation and outdoor space. Daylight availability was evaluated because studies show that daylight positively impacts health and wellbeing. Following COVID-19, many studies on healthy buildings have focused on ventilation. Increasingly, residents in multi-family housing are concerned about being able to ventilate their apartments. In many apartments there are windows on only one facade and it is therefore impossible to have daylight reach the back of the unit, or for it to achieve natural cross ventilation. Numerous studies have shown that access to outdoor space and proximity to outdoor space are connected to peopleís health and wellbeing and so this was a parameter in this study.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Massachusetts (UMass) AmherstSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207