MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurements of Air Leakage through Revolving Doors of Institutional Building

2001· article· en· W1963632870 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire Detection and Safety Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoorsLeakage (economics)Architectural engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringMechanical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exterior doors and entrances of nonresidential buildings are major sources of energy losses caused by air infiltration or exfiltration due to the frequent use of doors and the pressure difference across each door, created by the wind, stack effect, or ventilation systems. Information regarding the air leakage characteristics of manually or power-operated revolving doors is available in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) publications, based on studies carried out in the 1950s and 1960s. This paper presents results from a recent study carried out to investigate the air leakage characteristics of four revolving doors of a large institutional building in Montreal. These results are compared with data available in ASHRAE publications, as well as with the specifications of the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings and ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The impact of the quality of seals on the annual heating costs is also evaluated.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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