Evaluation of the Condensation Index Rating as Determined using the Proposed Testing Method in the NFRC 500 Draft Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the proposed NFRC 500 Procedure currently under development in the NFRC Technical Committee, as developed by the NFRC Condensation Subcommittee. The proposed NFRC 500 Procedure contains a new element in the evaluation of condensation, that being the utilization of computer software in analyzing and calculating the condensation index for comparative purposes. For those products that can't be simulated, a test only option is also offered. The primary focus for this paper is the analysis of the testing portion of the proposed NFRC 500 Procedure, emphasizing the testing calculations as defined in the procedure. Two NFRC annual round robins will be characterized, 1999 and 2000. The 1999 and 2000 NFRC round robin tests employed a nominal 1520 mm × 910 mm (60“ × 36“) non-thermal aluminum horizontal sliding window with high performance glazing. The simulated results will be used as a benchmark for the analysis of the testing data. Each round robin test specimen was tested at the NFRC-accredited Testing Laboratories. The tested fenestration thermal performance ratings (U-factors) were acquired in accordance with NFRC 100 (1997): Procedures for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors and NFRC Test Procedure for Measuring the Steady-State Thermal Transmittance of Fenestration Systems (April 1997). This paper details specific data regarding various measured and calculated performance values as required by the NFRC Procedures and Program Documents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".