Correlation Between Water Vapor and Air Permeability of Building Materials: Experimental Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two fundamental properties of building materials that influence the hygrothermal performance of building envelope systems are water vapor permeability and air permeability. The driving forces for water vapor and air transmission through building materials are, respectively, partial water vapor pressure and total air pressure differentials. The theoretical similarity of the driving forces would suggest the possibility of a relationship between water vapor and air permeability. During past two decades, researchers at the National Research Council of Canada—Institute for Research in Construction have compiled a database of measured air permeability and water vapor permeability properties of building materials commonly used in North America. This material properties database was examined to identify the degree to which air permeability and water vapor permeability of the building materials might be functionally related. The database was segregated into categories for different material types. An approximately linear relationship could, within some categories, be observed between water vapor permeability and air permeability. There were however approximately as many categories within which no relationship between the parameters was apparent as there were categories within which functional relationships between the parameters were apparent. Within categories where functional relationships were apparent, the form of the relationships generally depended on the mean relative humidity at which water vapor permeability was measured. In most cases, a definitive functional form of the relationship between water vapor permeability and air permeability could not be established.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".