MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041803047 · doi:10.1520/jte100983

Development of a New Test Method for Air Intrusion Quantification of Roofing Assemblies

2008· article· en· W2041803047 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suda Molleti, Bas A. Baskaran, Steven Kee Ping Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofIntrusionSuctionStructural engineeringEngineeringMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In North America, approximately one-fourth of low-slope buildings are roofed with a mechanically attached assembly (MAA) with a single-ply membrane. During wind suctions, the membrane can lift and billow. This creates localized suction under the membrane. If design provisions are not made to control the air intruison at the deck level, this suction pressure can draw the indoor conditioned air into the assembly. Two main factors influence the air intrusion: the air permeability of the components and shape or volume changes during the wind uplift. Available standard test procedures can quantify the former for roof materials. However, there is no widely accepted standard specification or test to address the air intrusion characteristics of roofing assemblies. Air leakage measurement techniques used for walls are also not applicable for roof assemblies due to the membrane shape and volume changes in the roof assembly. Research efforts are under way at the National Research Council of Canada to quantify the air intrusion rate of roof assemblies. This paper presents the details of the experimental setup, test procedure, and validation effort of this newly developed test method.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207