MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025179276 · doi:10.1520/jai101229

Critical Evaluation of Existing Specifications for Polyisocyanurate (ISO) Foam Insulation Boards in Roofing Applications

2007· article· en· W2025179276 on OpenAlexaff
Phalguni Mukhopadhyaya, Bas A. Baskaran, Nicole Normandin, John Lackey, Sebastian Evoniak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthThermal insulationStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringCivil engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In North America, more than 50 % of low slope roofing applications uses faced rigid cellular polyisocyanurate (hereafter abbreviated as ISO) board as thermal insulation. Long-term performance of a roof assembly is critically dependent on the ISO characteristics during the service period in various environmental conditions. For this reason, the ASTM C 1289-02, “Standard Specification for Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation Board,” outlines the physical and thermal property requirements for the ISO boards. However, these requirements are based on the available knowledge, information, and consensus at the time of drafting and balloting of the ASTM standard. Nevertheless, the standard gets updated and revised when more credible data are available that solicits revisions of the current standard. This paper presents experimental results from an ongoing pilot research study that critically evaluates the ASTM C 1289-02 specification requirements for the ISO on three engineering properties: (1) dimensional stability, (2) thermal resistance, and (3) compressive strength. Preliminary results from this study reveal many unknown phenomena, particularly regarding the dimensional stability and compressive strength of ISO boards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207