MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130099348 · doi:10.1177/1097196304044395

Heat and Mass Transfer between Indoor Air and a Permeable and Hygroscopic Building Envelope: Part I – Field Measurements

2004· article· en· W2130099348 on OpenAlexafffund
Carey J. Simonson, Mikael Salonvaara, Tuomo Ojanen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thermal Envelope and Building Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYmpäristöministeriöMinistry of Environment
KeywordsBuilding envelopeMass transferEnvironmental scienceMoistureEnvelope (radar)Ventilation (architecture)Indoor air qualityWater vaporHumidityDiffusionRelative humidityMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyMechanicsComposite materialThermodynamicsThermalEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, measurements are presented which quantify the mass transfer of tracer gases and water vapor between indoor air and a permeable and hygroscopic building envelope. The transfer of tracer gases through the envelope requires the entire envelope to be permeable, while the transfer of moisture requires sufficient hygroscopic mass to be in contact with the indoor air. The results show that mass transfer can improve the indoor air quality and climate. The diffusion of gases through the building envelope significantly increases the effective ventilation rate for poorly ventilated rooms, but only moderately increases the effective ventilation for well-ventilated rooms. Moisture transfer, on the other hand, has a significant influence on the indoor humidity for both poorly and well-ventilated rooms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thermal Envelope and Building ScienceSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207