MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of moisture reference years for assessing long-term mould growth risk of wood-frame building envelopes

2021· article· en· W4200543554 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Wang, Maurice Defo, Abhishek Gaur, Michael Lacasse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHygrothermal properties of building materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoistureFrame (networking)Latin hypercube samplingIndex (typography)Set (abstract data type)Term (time)MathematicsStatisticsData setSelection (genetic algorithm)Environmental scienceEngineeringComputer scienceMeteorologyGeographyMonte Carlo methodMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A moisture reference year (MRY) is generally used to assess the durability, or long-term performance of building envelopes within a long climatological time period, e.g. a 31 year timeframe. The intent of this paper is to develop a set of moisture reference years that can be used to assess risk to the formation of mould growth in wood-frame buildings over the long-term. The set of moisture reference years have been developed based on 15 realizations of 31-year climate data. Replicated Latin Hypercube Sampling is applied to select 15 sub-realizations with 7 representative years having different levels of moisture index (MI) from each realization. Thereafter, hygrothermal simulations are performed for a brick veneer clad wood-frame wall assembly using the 15 sub-realizations; that sub-realization which produces the highest value of maximum mould growth index over 7-year period is selected as the MRY. The selection process is then implemented for all 15 realizations of the 31-years of data sets, from which 15 sets of 7-year long MRYs are selected to represent the original 15 realizations. It is shown that the 15 sets of 7-year long MRYs can produce the same value of maximum mould growth index as well as the uncertainty as compared to the original 15 realizations having a 31-year climate data set.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicHygrothermal properties of building materialsFrench-language works237,207