MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3036156958 · doi:10.1520/stp161720180063

Thermal Bridging and Linear Thermal Transmittance Calculations for Balconies

2020· book-chapter· en· W3036156958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehdi Ghobadi, Josip Cingel, Michael Lacasse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)ThermalTransmittanceMaterials scienceThermal transmittanceThermodynamicsComputer sciencePhysicsOptoelectronicsThermal resistanceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal performance of building envelopes can be significantly affected by thermal bridging. Thermal bridges are localized areas of high heat flow through walls, roofs, and other insulated building envelope components. Thermal bridging is caused by highly conductive elements that penetrate the thermal insulation or misaligned planes of thermal insulation (or both) within the building envelope. These paths allow heat flow to bypass the insulating layer and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the insulation. The architectural look of exposed slab edges and protruding balconies or eyebrow elements in contemporary buildings is becoming increasingly common; however, the impact of floor slab edges and balconies on the thermal performance of the building is not well regulated. In this study, the impact of adding a balcony to a wood frame wall assembly was studied experimentally. Two wood frame wall assemblies were tested in the National Research Council’s guarded hot box test facility in Ottawa, ON, in accordance with ASTM C1363-19, Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus. The first test included a wall assembly without a balcony. The second test consisted of a wall assembly with a balcony. The linear transmittance value was calculated for the balcony. COMSOL Multiphysics software was also employed to model the wall assemblies, and the results from the three-dimensional simulations are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization→French-language works237,207→