Final report from Task 8 of MEWS Project (T8-03): hygrothermal response of exterior wall systems to climate loading: methodology and interpretation of results for stucco, EIFS, masonry and siding-clad wood-frame walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By 1997, several field surveys in North America had indicated that rain penetration in exterior walls and poor construction detailing contributed to the shortening of the service life of recently built exterior walls of low-rise buildings in climates with high exterior moisture loads. There was a movement in industry to rethink the ways that exterior walls had been put together in recent years, as well as a renewed appreciation that exterior climates vary in severity from one location to another. In 1998, IRC/NRC initiated a research consortium with industry partners to develop guidelines for moisture management for exterior wall systems (MEWS) in low-rise residential buildings of North America. Partners represented the wood industry, manufacturers of cladding systems, insulation materials and water resistive barriers as well as building owners and managers. The project was broken down into several tasks, from a review of literature on current construction practice to experimental work in the laboratory and mathematical modelling. The following four types of cladding systems were included in the project: Portland cement plaster (stucco), Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS), masonry and siding, over wood-frame construction.This TG8 report is a research document. The objectives of the report are three-fold: to describe the research approach in some detail (chapter 1), to summarize its application to the four types of wall assemblies (chapters 2 - 5) and to draw general conclusions (chapter 6), based on the observations in chapters 2 - 5. The reader is strongly advised to consult the research team before the information presented in this report is used for building design considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".