Overview of Durability and Methods of Service Life Prediction for Building Adhesive and Sealant Products
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jointing and sealant products play an important role in maintaining the weathertightness of buildings. Despite being relatively inexpensive, in respect to the overall cost of a building, they help minimize water penetration into and air movement across the building envelope. As such, sealant failures can result in undue air and moisture transfer across the building envelope, a loss of energy efficiency, and, given moisture ingress to the building envelope, the degradation of materials and components therein. To avoid serious degradation of building components and possible damage to the structural integrity of buildings as well as the potential significant and costly consequences of sealant failure, it is important to understand the underlying reasons for the degradation of adhesive and sealant products that, in turn, permit predicting their life expectancy. In this paper, a review is provided on advances in the durability, service life, and service life prediction (SLP) of sealants and adhesives in the building domain over the past decade. In this overview, emphasis is placed on work derived from relevant technical committees, together with symposia and conferences focused on the SLP of polymer materials. The information serves both as a primer on the topic and an update on previous contributions in this area. Examples of current trends in SLP are presented, along with expectations for future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it