MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148442759 · doi:10.1520/jai12505

A Review of Climate Loads Relevant to Assessing the Watertightness Performance of Walls, Windows, and Wall-Window Interfaces

2005· review· en· W2148442759 on OpenAlexaff
SM Cornick, Michael Lacasse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainwater harvestingCladding (metalworking)Environmental sciencePenetration (warfare)Wind speedWind engineeringMeteorologyEngineeringMaterials scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When assessing a wall assembly's ability to manage rainwater and control rain penetration, the two key climatic elements to consider are wind speed and rainfall intensity. However, of significance to rain penetration is the effect of wind-driven rain on the building cladding — that is wind coincident with rainfall. When water is present at openings in the cladding, water is driven into the layers of the assembly by the action of wind. Paths providing a direct line from openings in the cladding to inside the assembly offer particularly vulnerable points for water entry. Performance testing helps determine the location of vulnerable locations in a wall assembly and the test loads at which penetration occurs, and it possibly relates the amount of entry to specific details and simulated climate effects. Undertaking watertightness performance tests requires knowledge of extremes in wind-driven rain or specifically the occurrence and level of extreme rainfall events for locations of interest. A review of climate information on wind-driven rain is provided, and its relevance to assessing the watertightness performance of walls, windows, and wall-window interfaces is discussed. Values of rainfall intensity, duration, and frequency or occurrence are given, emphasizing the level of significance of these variables to different North American climates.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207