MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245649247 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14658195

Study Of The Variability Of Air Leakage Rate Between In-Situ Tested and Laboratory Tested

2021· preprint· en· W4245649247 on OpenAlexaff
Negar Pakzadianmoghaddam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)FenestrationStatisticsEnvironmental scienceMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The air leakage measured using the laboratory test of fenestration is important to gauge its initial performance and for certification. Field testing based on a statistical approach was carried out in this study on newly installed fenestration product to study the nature of distribution of air leakage measurements. The measured values from these tests were also compared to the laboratory tested value of the same product and to the values as suggested in field testing guidelines as provided in AAMA 502. Results indicate that field measured values at standard pressure difference follow a normal distribution with a mean and a variance. The results also show that while number of test results fall within a certain range of the laboratory value and the AAMA 502 stipulated value, there are number of values that are higher than them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207