Durability Testing of Polyurethane Foam Sealant in the Window-Wall Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In late 1990, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC-CNRC) and the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of Canada (CCMC) set about developing a durability protocol for aerosol foam sealants. Major input for this effort was supplied by Dr. Mark Bomberg then on the NRC-CNRC staff. At that time a major manufacturer of aerosol foam sealant wished to address some developing concerns whether foam sealant used around the perimeter of windows and doors during their installation was really durable. The manufacturer completed the durability testing according to the established NRC protocol. Now the protocol is also part of a new Standard CAN/ULC-S710.1 and CAN/ULC-S711.1. This paper will describe that testing as it was completed at the third party laboratory, Air-Ins Inc., of Montreal, Canada using criteria from the 1995 National Building Code of Canada [1]. The data obtained also formed the basis for CCMC Evaluation report 13074-R [2].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".