BDMC interlaboratory cone calorimeter test programme
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the spring of 1997, seven companies and industry associations from the USA and Canada decided to sponsor the cone calorimeter interlaboratory test programme. Reproducibility and repeatability were determined for the scalar variables measured in the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354) according to the protocol developed by the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes. The main requirement of the protocol was that the sample irradiance should be 75 kW/m 2 . The purpose of the project was to assist the model building code organizations, NFPA and various other groups in the development of a system to determine degrees of combustibility of building materials. Three US and one Canadian laboratory agreed to conduct tests on 16 materials. The results of this round robin show that the cone calorimeter, following the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes protocol, can provide precision similar to that cited in the current cone calorimeter standards. It is recommended that further improvements of the standards are pursued and provisions are made to improve the quality of operation of the cone calorimeter in commercial laboratories to maintain and possibly improve its repeatability and reproducibility. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 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 it