White light exposures and mood: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective/Introduction: Light affects many physiological and psychological processes, and there is strong interest in using knowledge of these effects to improve environmental light conditions. This systematic review will summarize empirical studies evaluating the effects of polychromatic (white) light exposure on mood and calculate these exposures using the CIE S026 α-opic quantities. Methods: We queried several search engines for relevant articles in healthy adults published between 1990 and 2020. We quantified the light exposures from each article into α-oopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance (EDI) values using the metrology system set out in CIE S026:2018. Planned analyses include a narrative review and meta-regressions. Results: From 1865 publications, 18 met our inclusion criteria and are being analyzed. Many of the omissions resulted from missing or unclear methodological and statistical details such as outcome measures, study setting, location of lighting measurements, and spectral data. Conclusions: This study will likely highlight the need for higher standards for reporting statistics and methodology in lighting research. Time permitting, results will be presented.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".