MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608846691 · doi:10.4224/20378945

Executive summary of research contributions related to Moisture Management of Exterior Wall Systems (MEWS): modeling, experiments, and benchmarking

2002· article· en· W2608846691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Lacasse, Dennis Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingMewsExecutive summaryComputer scienceBusinessPsychologyManagementEconomicsEarly warning score

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncontrolled moisture accumulation in a building envelope reduces the structural integrity of its components through a combination of mechanical, chemical and biological degradation. Damage induced by moisture ingress includes rotting of wood studs and wood-based sheathing, as well as other detrimental effects such as efflorescence and spalling of masonry, and rusting of fastening mechanisms. Over the past decade, a significant number of low-rise wood-frame residential buildings have been plagued with water penetration problems related to uncontrolled moisture accumulation in the building envelope. In the majority of cases, the reported problems are in coastal areas such as lower mainland of BC, Maritime Provinces and eastern US. Effective moisture control is essential for an acceptable service life of building envelope. Effective moisture control implies both, minimising moisture ingress to prevent ingress of moisture into the inner most fabric of the wall assemblies, and redirection of moisture to the exterior. The principal objective is not to allow any component within the system to stay 'too wet' for 'too long'. The challenge would be to qualify and quantify what is considered "too wet" and "too long"?

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207