Performance of Protected Ceiling/Floor Assemblies and Impact on Tenability with a Basement Fire Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experiments conducted using the test assemblies with regular gypsum board protection exhibited the same chronological sequence of fire events - fire initiation, smoke alarm activation, onset of untenable conditions, and finally structural failure of the test assemblies. The sequence was the same between the experiments conducted in this series of the full-scale fire experiments and also the same as the experiments conducted in Phase 1 of the FPH research for the fire scenario with an open basement doorway. Smoke obscuration was the first hazard to arise. Untenable (incapacitation) conditions were reached shortly after smoke obscuration. Compared to the experiments conducted in Phase 1 using the same floor structures without gypsum board protection, the times during which tenable conditions were maintained were similar or improved slightly whilst the structural performance was improved significantly with the gypsum-board-protected ceiling/floor assemblies. The times taken to reach structural failure for the gypsum-board-protected assemblies were much longer than those Phase 1 experiments with no protection. Also, with regular gypsum board protection, all test assemblies provided similar durations of structural fire endurance under the test fire scenario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".