Durability of traditional clamped joints in the vapour barrier layer: experimental and numerical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clamped joints of wood frame buildings are a traditional way in Norway to attain airtight joints for the air and vapour barrier. There are numerous defects registered in the SINTEF Building Defects Archive related to air leakage through the vapour barrier, on one hand, and stricter requirements for reduced energy consumption, on the other hand, question today’s efficacy of these type of joints. This study investigates the durability of clamped joints by studying how the airtightness is affected by several drying and wetting cycles. Experimental work is carried out to measure air leakage rates, which in turn, are used to evaluate their impact on the airtightness of two different constructions by numerical estimations. Results show that the air leakage rates are increased significantly due to transient climatic conditions. Clamped joints may no longer provide airtight building envelopes given the stricter requirements for energy consumption and implications of climate change. A more promising and robust alternative is the use of self-adhesive tapes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".