A Field Study Comparison of the Energy and Moisture Performance Characteristics of Ventilated Versus Sealed Crawl Spaces in the South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the performance of closed crawl spaces, which had sealed foundation wall vents, a sealed polyethylene film liner and various insulation and drying strategies, to traditional wall-vented crawl spaces with perimeter wall vents and polyethylene film covering 100% of the ground surface. The study was conducted at 12 owner-occupied, all electric, single-family detached houses with the same floor plan located on one cul-de-sac in the southeastern United States. Using the matched pairs approach, the houses were divided into three study groups of four houses each. Comparative data was recorded for each house to evaluate sub-metered heat pump energy consumption, relative humidity, wood moisture content, duct infiltration, house infiltration, temperature, radon, and bioaerosol levels. Findings indicated that in the humid conditions of the southeastern United States, a properly closed crawl space is a robust construction measure that produces a substantially drier crawl space and significantly reduces occupied space conditioning energy use on an annual basis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".