MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048286375 · doi:10.1177/0075424202025004600

Protection of Foam Plastic Thermal Insulation in Low Sloped Roofing Systems

2002· article· en· W2048286375 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 Thermal Envelope and Building Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofDeckThermal insulationMaterials scienceComposite materialCorrosionThermalPipe insulationEnvironmental scienceWaste managementVacuum insulated panelStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foam plastic thermal insulations have substantially replaced traditional insulations in low sloped roofing systems in North America. Foam plastic thermal insulations used in low sloped roofs are low density (typically 16–48 kg/m3) materials with low permeability to air and water vapour. In many roofs these materials have been directly substituted for traditional (wood and glass fibre) insulations without due attention to the different material characteristics. Moist air movement within roofs,condensation protection (air and vapour barriers),steel deck corrosion,roof membrane blistering and roof traffic damage are discussed. This paper discusses protection of foam plastic thermal insulations in roofing systems, why the protection is needed,and what consequences result if these materials are not protected. Case studies demonstrate the importance of condensation protection in reducing corrosion of galvanized steel in roofs containing closed cell phenolic foam roof insulation in Canada.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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