MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002816552 · doi:10.1177/109719630002400103

Freezing-Thawing Processes in Glass Fiber Board

2000· article· en· W2002816552 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thermal Envelope and Building Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHygrothermal properties of building materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceMoistureCondensationGlass fiberComposite materialFiberPhase (matter)Water contentHeat transferPorosityWater vaporThermodynamicsGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the prevention of vapor condensation and accompanying damage in cold regions, the behavior of water and ice in porous materials should be understood. In this study, experiments on the freezing-thawing processes in a glass fiber board, which is a typical insu lation, were conducted. The freezing-thawing processes were analyzed with the use of si multaneous heat and moisture transfer equations that accounted for the existence of ice. The result of the analysis agrees well with that of the experiment. In materials with large pores such as glass fiber board, the moisture transfers mainly in the gaseous phase. As a re sult, the maximum ice content is found at the colder boundary of the wall, which differs from the result in our previous investigation [1] for Leda Clay with pores that are much smaller.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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