journal Issue 44/4th Quarter 2005 professional practice Regulate for Light, Air and Healthy Living Part III- The becoming of PNAP 278
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"If there is an open space, on plan, in front of a window as defined in the Unobstructed Vision Area (UVA) rules of X square metre, then there is a 75 % probability that the amount of daylight receivable on the window pane will equal or exceed Y % Vertical Daylight Factor (VDF)." Background From the barren rock to the metropolis, Hong Kong has witnessed changes beyond imagination. The building regulations, began in 1903, were followed through until 1956. Then they stalled and have only recently been revisited. Part 1 of this series of papers traced the history of regulating natural light and ventilation to pre-history times in the UK. It provided a glimpse of what were to happen in Hong Kong later. Part 2 followed up with a history of the same in Hong Kong. Part 3 continues the story about a recent attempt by the Buildings Department to review their building regulations of lighting and ventilation in Hong Kong and the efforts accumulated to the introduction of PNAP-278 in early 2004. PNAP 278, especially the lighting for domestic buildings portion of it, is the result of a technical consultancy agreement and some 4 years of work by researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). This paper summarises the path walked and some of the untold basis of its content. It serves to inform architects of Hong Kong its rationale and its fundamentals. The purpose of this paper is such that architects could have an informed basis when using the practice note.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.259 | 0.133 |
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".