Quantifying air leakage through party walls in Toronto semidetached and row-home dwellings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study contributes to the development of quantifying and understanding building air tightness as it relates to Toronto semi-detached and row homes, particularly party walls. While infiltration characteristics of single family detached homes have been widely developed and understood, the isolation of semi-detached and row home single family dwelling units is relatively unexplored. When quantifying air leakage in a building attached to an adjacent dwelling unit, air is drawn through the exterior envelope as well as the party wall (i.e. shared common wall). The purpose of the proposed testing method, guarded blower door testing, is to isolate air leakage through the party wall from the envelope. Currently the party wall is considered a fire-rated assembly but is not part of the air barrier system. Issues associated with party wall air leakage include spread of fire, indoor air quality, transfer of tobacco smoke between dwellings, and heat loss through the party to attic detail. Data collected on buildings constructed between 1890 and 1920 (Century buildings) has been compared to the data collected on buildings constructed between 2012 to 2017 (new buildings). Air leakage has been collected on twenty-six of Century semi-detached homes with solid masonry construction and twenty-one new semi-detached/row homes of lightweight wood frame construction. Each unit was tested independently and simultaneously, or “guarded”, with the adjacent unit, to pressure neutralize allowing for quantification of envelope and party wall air leakage. Party wall leakage was found to be similar to leakage through the exterior walls. The leakage accounted for 22% of the total infiltration in Century old buildings and 38% in Modern dwellings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".