MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205921576 · doi:10.3390/buildings11100476

Combined Use of Wind-Driven Rain Load and Potential Evaporation to Evaluate Moisture Damage Risk: Case Study on the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa, Canada

2021· article· en· W3205921576 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aytaç Kubilay, John Bourcet, Jessica Gravel, Xiaohai Zhou, Travis Moore, Michael Lacasse, Jan Carmeliet, Dominique Derome

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMoistureEvaporationWind speedMeteorologyBuilding envelopeRisk assessmentComputational fluid dynamicsTowerEnvironmental engineeringAtmospheric sciencesEngineeringCivil engineeringGeographyGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parts of the building envelope that frequently receive high amounts of rain are usually exposed to a higher risk of deterioration due to moisture. Determination of such locations can thus help with the assessment of moisture-induced damage risks. This study performs computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of wind-driven rain (WDR) on the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, Canada. Long-term time-varying wetting load due to WDR and potential evaporation are considered according to several years of meteorological data, and this cumulative assessment is proposed as a fast method to identify critical locations and periods. The results show that, on the Center Block of the Parliament buildings, the façades of lower towers facing east are the most exposed to WDR, together with the corners of the main tower. Periods of high WDR wetting load larger than the potential evaporation are observed, indicating that deposited rain may lead to moisture accumulation in the envelope. During these critical periods of up to several months, air temperature may repeatedly drop below freezing point, which poses a risk of freeze–thaw damage. First assessment on future freeze–thaw damage risks indicates an increase in such risks at moderate increases in temperature, but a lower risk is found for larger increases in temperature.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207