MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring Air Leakage Characteristics with Flexible Double Air Chambers

2002· article· en· W2162446339 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 Architectural Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)Cabin pressurizationMonte Carlo methodEnvelope (radar)CalibrationUncertainty analysisStructural engineeringSimulationEngineeringAcousticsComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fan pressurization method for measuring air leakage through the building envelope relies on the assumption that the extraneous air leakage (EAL) through paths other than those through the specimen being tested is negligible. When EAL does exist, the calibration procedure by ASTM Standard E-283 is used to measure EAL values by covering the specimen or guarded chambers are used to equalize the pressure differences across these unintended paths. A new testing method, the flexible double-chamber method, is presented in this paper for large specimens where the above two approaches are difficult to implement and where flexible chambers are more easily applied. The experimental procedure and data processing routine are presented for the case of a full-size metal curtain wall specimen. The EAL is estimated by regression analysis in data processing. Inference analysis, multivariate error analysis, and the Monte Carlo simulation technique are also presented to examine the estimation errors.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.160 · 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