MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076818608 · doi:10.1177/1744259111411653

Condensation risk assessment on box windows: the effect of the window–wall interface

2011· article· en· W2076818608 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Building Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindow (computing)Isobaric processCondensationThermalInterface (matter)Materials scienceMechanicsStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceComposite materialThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Windows generally have the lowest temperature index in current building types, and will consequently be the primary location for interior surface condensation. Surface temperatures can easily be calculated using thermal finite-element models, but these generally omit the effect of convection in the windows and the window–wall interface. Hence, there is a need to determine if specific interface details provide potential for condensation on the window components in which air leakage paths may be prominent. The article reports on a laboratory evaluation of condensation risk assessment in a hotbox with varying pressure differences and the introduction of deficiencies. It was concluded that the effect of the type of insulation in the window–wall interface was very low for isobaric boundary conditions, whereas it has a significant effect when pressure differences are applied.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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