MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196015002 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncab119

RADON INFILTRATION BUILDING ENVELOPE TEST SYSTEM: EVALUATION OF BARRIER MATERIALS

2021· article· en· W3196015002 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janet Gaskin, Yunyi Ethan Li, Ganapathy Gnanamurugan, Gang Nong, Jeffrey Whyte, Liang Grace Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsRadonEnvironmental scienceInfiltration (HVAC)Building envelopeMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of radon barrier materials currently available for housing foundations was evaluated using a unique radon infiltration building envelope test system that was designed to test radon prevention and mitigation systems using real world construction techniques. The reduction in radon concentration measured across the air barrier in the foundations has been used to evaluate five representative barrier materials installed in the radon infiltration building envelope test facility. The reduction in radon concentration in the mock house varied from 68% for 6 mil polyethylene to 98% for the spray polyurethane foam. The five representative barrier materials were selected after determining the radon diffusion coefficient and the corresponding radon resistance from samples of 14 barrier materials in a radon diffusion testing chamber. The Canadian experience evaluating whether radon barrier materials would satisfy building code requirements was described.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207